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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to Applicant's amendment filed on 9/17/2025.
Claim 1, 3-9, 11-17 and 19-23 are pending. Claim 1, 9, and 17 are amended. Claim 2, 10 and 18 are cancelled. Claim 1, 3-9, 11-17 and 19-23 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkoba, Rao et al (PGPUB Document No. 20200265055 ), hereafter referred as to “Venkoba”, in view of Cozzi, Alex (PGPUB Document No. 20090234834), hereafter, referred to as “Cozzi”, in view of Yoshida, Masako (PGPUB Document No. 20200099796 ), hereafter, referred to as “Yoshida”, in view of Devereux, William et al (PGPUB Document No. 20220092133), hereafter, referred to as “Devereux”, in further view of Mathieu, Eric, et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140358969), hereafter, referred to as “Mathieu”.
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Venkoba teaches A method comprising: classifying and tagging results of a search query that are displayed in and accessible from a different location(Venkoba, para 0074 discloses categorizing and tagging search results “At step 505, the documents in the query result 518 may be tagged into valid and invalid bucket list based on the set of pre-defined rules. In some embodiments, the documents may be categorized (tagged) based on order of priority” para 0021 further teaches accessing displayed search results from user interface “In some embodiments, the query builder module 209 and the answering module 208 may interact with a user (not shown) by the way of a user interface 210 to receive a query and to present an improved or updated search result to the user”), the search query being deployed via a user interface of a device prior to the classification and tagging(Venkoba, para 0021 discloses search queries being sent via user interface and as results are getting classified and tagged so classification process is taking place after the query gets sent “In some embodiments, the query builder module 209 and the answering module 208 may interact with a user (not shown) by the way of a user interface 210 to receive a query and to present an improved or updated search result to the user”):
But Venkoba does not explicitly teach receiving selection of an object from a first plurality of objects of an object list, wherein the object list has an order of arrangement and is included on a first digital page displayed on the user interface of the device based on the classification and tagging; receiving an additional selection of a category icon from a plurality of category icons corresponding to a plurality of categories, wherein the plurality of category icons are included on the first digital page; modifying, automatically and without user intervention, the object list to exclude the object from the first digital page, and inserting a gap at a position of the excluded object; and maintaining the order of arrangement of the object list that is modified, wherein the maintaining includes displaying a second plurality of objects included in the object list that is modified on the first digital page in accordance with the order of arrangement and removing the gap after the object list is modified and retaining each position of the first plurality of objects prior to and after the object is excluded, wherein each of the plurality of objects and the plurality of category icons are positioned within a first box, wherein the plurality of category icons are each positioned in a vertical manner relative to a degree of relevance within a second box that is arranged within the first box, and the plurality of category icons are different, and wherein the plurality of categories include a relevant category, an irrelevant category, and a possibly relevant category that are each associated with each of the different plurality of category icons.
However, in the same field of endeavor of content categorization Cozzi teaches receiving selection of an object from a first plurality of objects of an object list, wherein the object list has an order of arrangement and is included on a first digital page displayed on the user interface of the device based on the classification and tagging(Cozzi, Fig. 4A and para 0024 discloses a method for users to provide feedback on a search result object list on first result page “a ranking process may attempt to display more likely relevant results to a user before less likely relevant results at least in part by placing more likely results at or near the top of a list of the search results”; where Venkoba in para 0074 discloses categorizing and tagging of contents);
receiving an additional selection of a category icon from a plurality of category icons corresponding to a plurality of categories, wherein the plurality of category icons are included on the first digital page(Cozzi, Fig. 4A para 0024 disclose category icon (pushpin & scissor) associated to each object on the first page to indicate relevancy of objects “a push pin icon, such as push pin icon 404, may represent an affirmative ranking, while a scissors icon, such as scissors icon 406, may represent a negative ranking. In this example, a user could click on one of the push pin icons to indicate that an adjacent search result is of particular relevance to that user”); and wherein the plurality of categories include a relevant category, an irrelevant category(Cozzi, Fig. 4 A para 0024 disclose category icon pushpin & scissor associated to each object on the first page to indicate relevancy and irrelevancy of objects “a push pin icon, such as push pin icon 404, may represent an affirmative ranking, while a scissors icon, such as scissors icon 406, may represent a negative ranking”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of indicating categories on an user interface of Cozzi into classifying and tagging of search results of Venkoba to produce an expected result of displaying contents by their respective categories. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide search results with to users indicating relatedness of retrieved contents to search query (Cozzi, para 0014).
But Venkoba and Cozzi don’t explicitly teach modifying, automatically and without user intervention, the object list to exclude the object from the first digital page, and inserting a gap at a position of the excluded object; and maintaining the order of arrangement of the object list that is modified, wherein the maintaining includes displaying a second plurality of objects included in the object list that is modified on the first digital page in accordance with the order of arrangement and removing the gap after the object list is modified and retaining each position of the first plurality of objects prior to and after the object is excluded, wherein each of the plurality of objects and the plurality of category icons are positioned within a first box, wherein the plurality of category icons are each positioned in a vertical manner relative to a degree of relevance within a second box that is arranged within the first box, and the plurality of category icons are different, and a possibly relevant category that are each associated with each of the different plurality of category icons.
However, in the same field of endeavor of content ordering Yoshida teaches modifying, automatically and without user intervention, the object list to exclude the object from the first digital page, and inserting a gap at a position of the excluded object(Yoshida, para 0053 discloses removing or excluding content “After the sliding operation in the first direction is triggered, a portion of new content will be displayed in the display interface area to be presented to the user, and at the same time, a portion of content that has been displayed to the user will be correspondingly removed from the display interface area.”); and maintaining the order of arrangement of the object list that is modified, wherein the maintaining includes displaying a second plurality of objects included in the object list that is modified on the first digital page in accordance with the order of arrangement and removing the gap after the object list is modified and retaining each position of the first plurality of objects prior to and after the object is excluded(Yoshida, para 0057 discloses removed content is being replaced with a blank content with same size and keeping the same place of the removed content with a blank content; this suggests keeping content display order “The client generates blank content with the same height as the removed content according to the height of the removed content, and replaces the removed content with the blank content, that is, replaces the removed content with blank content with the same height as the removed content”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of removing content form a page of Yoshida into search result list with category indicators of Venkoba and Cozzi to produce an expected result of removing irrelevant result item from a list. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce the resources needed for page rendering by replacing removed content by blank content(Yoshida, para 0008).
But Venkoba, Cozzi and Yoshida don’t explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of objects and the plurality of category icons are positioned within a first box, wherein the plurality of category icons are each positioned in a vertical manner relative to a degree of relevance within a second box that is arranged within the first box, and the plurality of category icons are different, and a possibly relevant category that are each associated with each of the different plurality of category icons.
However, in the same field of endeavor of content organization Devereux teaches wherein each of the plurality of objects and the plurality of category icons are positioned within a first box, wherein the plurality of category icons are each positioned in a vertical manner relative to a degree of relevance within a second box that is arranged within the first box(Devereux, discloses other contents/objects and group of vertically arranged category icons in a second box 408 are getting displayed within a bigger box 130, the icons are HTML object on a HTML page so they can by positioned/arranged in any ordered on a displaying page), and the plurality of category icons are different(Devereux, discloses a group of vertically arranged category different icons are getting displayed within a bigger box (130)),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of displaying items with their respective categories in a box of Devereux into search result list with category indicators of Venkoba, Cozzi and Yoshida to produce an expected result of displaying item’s selected category. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to display part of web contents in a collapsible manner so that contents can be advantageously provide full view of the webpage contents while providing quick access to navigation tab control icons (Devereux, para 0091).
But Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida and Devereux don’t explicitly teach and a possibly relevant category that are each associated with each of the different plurality of category icons.
However, in the same field of endeavor of search result ordering Mathieu teaches and a possibly relevant category that are each associated with each of the different plurality of category icons (Mathieu, para 0144 discloses a possibly relevant category/neutral button to indicate somewhat similar contents “in particular possible to provide additional relevant signaling means, for example a "neutral" button, in addition to means making it possible to indicate the relevance and/or irrelevance”; where any icon are labels and can be used to indicate any action/purposes ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of indicating lightly related object in the result set of Mathieu into category indicators of Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida and Devereux to produce an expected result of providing an additional category type to users to choose from. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to indicate possibly relevant object category so that the search engine can advantageously process content based on whether a content is relevant or irrelevant (Mathieu, 0061-0063).
Claim 2, cancelled.
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu teach all the limitations of claim 1 and Yoshida further teaches further comprising: displaying, responsive to the selecting of the category icon, automatically and without user intervention, the object on a second digital page corresponding to a category associated with the category icon (Yoshida, para 0053 discloses removing or excluding content “After the sliding operation in the first direction is triggered, a portion of new content will be displayed in the display interface area to be presented to the user, and at the same time, a portion of content that has been displayed to the user will be correspondingly removed from the display interface area”; where Fig. 4A para 0024 disclose category icon (pushpin & scissor) associated to each object on the first page to indicate relevancy of objects for removing contents);
Cozzi further teaches receiving an additional selection of an additional object from the second plurality of objects in the object list that is modified, the second plurality of objects included on the first digital page; and receiving an additional selection of an additional category icon from the plurality of category icons(Cozzi, Fig. 5B and para 0027 objects are being displayed on the new page with removing the excluded items and displayed items having their corresponding category icons (push pin and scissor) to select any category “The search engine may be able to determine one or more user provided preferences based on the user's identity and/or the search terms and may be able to reorder the search results so that the negatively ranked search results are displayed less prominently than other search results. In this example, the negatively ranked search results are not shown in the list of search results”).
Regarding claim 4(Original), Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu teach all the limitations of claim 3 and Cozzi further teaches further comprising further modifying the object list that is modified, the further modifying comprising excluding the additional object included in the second plurality of objects included on the first digital page (Cozzi, as disclosed in Fig. 5A, any object can be selected to remove from second page (Fig. 5B) by selecting their corresponding icon).
Regarding claim 6(Original), Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu teach all the limitations of claim 3 and Cozzi further teaches further comprising: receiving an additional selection of the object that is displayed on the second digital page corresponding to the category(Cozzi, discloses an updated second digital page 5B where any object can be selected to remove or to indicate relevant on second page by selecting their corresponding icon “scissor” or “push pin”);
and selecting an additional category icon corresponding to an additional category of the plurality of categories, the additional category icon is displayed on the second digital page (Cozzi, in Fig. 5B already considered selection of “scissor” icon form first page by excluding removed contents; at the second page (fig. 5B) additional category displayed icon (“push pin”) can be selected as well).
Regarding claim 7(Original), Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu teach all the limitations of claim 6 and Cozzi further teaches further comprising modifying, automatically and without user intervention, the second digital page to exclude the object (Cozzi, discloses an updated second digital page 5B where any object can be selected to remove or to indicate relevant on second page by selecting their corresponding icon “scissor” or “push pin”; where Miller in fig. 10 and para 0218 disclose exclusion of objects).
Regarding claim 8(Original), Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu teach all the limitations of claim 6 and Cozzi further teaches further comprising displaying responsive to the selecting of the additional category icon(Cozzi, in Fig. 5B already considered selection of “scissor” icon form first page by excluding removed contents; at the second page (fig. 5B) additional category displayed icon (“push pin”) can be selected as well), automatically and without user intervention, the object on a third digital page corresponding to the additional category of the plurality of categories(Cozzi, similar to teaching of Fig. 4A-B, selecting push-pin/additional category icon would update the second page by having modified content at the top of the list (element 452 in fig. 4B)).
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Venkoba teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the computing device to(Venkoba, Fig. 1 discloses a computing system with computer readable medium): classify and tag results of a search query that are displayed in and accessible from a different location(Venkoba, para 0074 discloses categorizing and tagging search results “At step 505, the documents in the query result 518 may be tagged into valid and invalid bucket list based on the set of pre-defined rules. In some embodiments, the documents may be categorized (tagged) based on order of priority” para 0021 further teaches accessing displayed search results from user interface “In some embodiments, the query builder module 209 and the answering module 208 may interact with a user (not shown) by the way of a user interface 210 to receive a query and to present an improved or updated search result to the user”), the search query being deployed via a user interface of a device prior to the classification and tagging(Venkoba, para 0021 discloses search queries being sent via user interface and as results are getting classified and tagged so classification process is taking place after the query gets sent “In some embodiments, the query builder module 209 and the answering module 208 may interact with a user (not shown) by the way of a user interface 210 to receive a query and to present an improved or updated search result to the user”):
But Venkoba does not explicitly teach receive selection of an object from a first plurality of objects of an object list, wherein the object list has an order of arrangement and is included on a first digital page displayed on the user interface of the device based on the classification and tagging; receive an additional selection of a category icon from a plurality of category icons corresponding to a plurality of categories, wherein the plurality of category icons are included on the first digital page; modify, automatically and without user intervention, the object list to exclude the object from the first digital page, and insert a gap at a position of the excluded object; and maintain the order of arrangement of the object list that is modified, wherein the maintaining includes displaying a second plurality of objects included in the object list that is modified on the first digital page in accordance with the order of arrangement and removing the gap after the object list is modified and retain each position of the first plurality of objects prior to and after the object is excluded, wherein each of the plurality of objects and the plurality of category icons are positioned within a first box, wherein the plurality of category icons are each positioned in a vertical manner relative to a degree of relevance within a second box that is arranged within the first box, and the plurality of category icons are different, and wherein the plurality of categories include a relevant category, an irrelevant category, and a possibly relevant category that are each associated with each of the different plurality of category icons.
receive selection of an object from a first plurality of objects of an object list, wherein the object list has an order of arrangement and is included on a first digital page displayed on the user interface of the device based on the classification and tagging(Cozzi, Fig. 4A and para 0024 discloses a process for users to provide feedback on a search result object list on first result page “a ranking process may attempt to display more likely relevant results to a user before less likely relevant results at least in part by placing more likely results at or near the top of a list of the search results” where Venkoba in para 0074 discloses categorizing and tagging of contents);
receive an additional selection of a category icon from a plurality of category icons corresponding to a plurality of categories, wherein the plurality of category icons are included on the first digital page(Cozzi, Fig. 4 A para 0024 disclose category icon (pushpin & scissor) associated to each object on the first page to indicate relevancy of objects “a push pin icon, such as push pin icon 404, may represent an affirmative ranking, while a scissors icon, such as scissors icon 406, may represent a negative ranking. In this example, a user could click on one of the push pin icons to indicate that an adjacent search result is of particular relevance to that user”);
and wherein the plurality of categories include a relevant category, an irrelevant category(Cozzi, Fig. 4 A para 0024 disclose category icon pushpin & scissor associated to each object on the first page to indicate relevancy and irrelevancy of objects “a push pin icon, such as push pin icon 404, may represent an affirmative ranking, while a scissors icon, such as scissors icon 406, may represent a negative ranking”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of indicating categories on an user interface of Cozzi into classifying and tagging of search results of Venkoba to produce an expected result of displaying contents by their respective categories. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide search results with to users indicating relatedness of retrieved contents to search query (Cozzi, para 0014).
But Venkoba and Cozzi don’t explicitly teach modify, automatically and without user intervention, the object list to exclude the object from the first digital page, and insert a gap at a position of the excluded object; and maintain the order of arrangement of the object list that is modified, wherein the maintaining includes displaying a second plurality of objects included in the object list that is modified on the first digital page in accordance with the order of arrangement and removing the gap after the object list is modified and retain each position of the first plurality of objects prior to and after the object is excluded, wherein each of the plurality of objects and the plurality of category icons are positioned within a first box, [[and]] wherein the plurality of category icons are each positioned in a vertical manner relative to a degree of relevance within a second box that is arranged within the first box, and the plurality of category icons are different, and a possibly relevant category that are each associated with each of the different plurality of category icons.
However, in the same field of endeavor of content ordering Yoshida teaches modify, automatically and without user intervention, the object list to exclude the object from the first digital page, and insert a gap at a position of the excluded object(Yoshida, para 0053 discloses removing or excluding content “After the sliding operation in the first direction is triggered, a portion of new content will be displayed in the display interface area to be presented to the user, and at the same time, a portion of content that has been displayed to the user will be correspondingly removed from the display interface area.”); and maintain the order of arrangement of the object list that is modified, wherein the maintaining includes displaying a second plurality of objects included in the object list that is modified on the first digital page in accordance with the order of arrangement and removing the gap after the object list is modified and retain each position of the first plurality of objects prior to and after the object is excluded(Yoshida, para 0057 discloses removed content is being replaced with a blank content with same size and keeping the same place of the removed content with a blank content; this suggests keeping content display order “The client generates blank content with the same height as the removed content according to the height of the removed content, and replaces the removed content with the blank content, that is, replaces the removed content with blank content with the same height as the removed content.”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of removing content form a page of Yoshida into search result list with category indicators of Venkoba and Cozzi to produce an expected result of removing irrelevant result item from a list. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce the resources needed for page rendering by replacing removed content by blank content(Yoshida, para 0008).
But Venkoba, Cozzi and Yoshida don’t explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of objects and the plurality of category icons are positioned within a first box, wherein the plurality of category icons are each positioned in a vertical manner relative to a degree of relevance within a second box that is arranged within the first box, and the plurality of category icons are different, and a possibly relevant category that are each associated with each of the different plurality of category icons.
However, in the same field of endeavor of content organization Devereux teaches wherein each of the plurality of objects and the plurality of category icons are positioned within a first box, wherein the plurality of category icons are each positioned in a vertical manner relative to a degree of relevance within a second box that is arranged within the first box(Devereux, discloses other contents/objects and group of vertically arranged category icons in a second box 408 are getting displayed within a bigger box 130, the icons are HTML object on a HTML page so they can by positioned/arranged in any ordered on a displaying page), and the plurality of category icons are different(Devereux, discloses a group of vertically arranged category different icons are getting displayed within a bigger box (130)),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of displaying items with their respective categories in a box of Devereux into search result list with category indicators of Venkoba, Cozzi and Yoshida to produce an expected result of displaying item’s selected category. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to display part of web contents in a collapsible manner so that contents can be advantageously provide full view of the webpage contents while providing quick access to navigation tab control icons (Devereux, para 0091).
But Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida and Devereux don’t explicitly teach and a possibly relevant category that are each associated with each of the different plurality of category icons.
However, in the same field of endeavor of search result ordering Mathieu teaches and a possibly relevant category that are each associated with each of the different plurality of category icons(Mathieu, para 0144 discloses a possibly relevant category/neutral button to indicate somewhat similar contents “in particular possible to provide additional relevant signaling means, for example a "neutral" button, in addition to means making it possible to indicate the relevance and/or irrelevance”; where any icon are labels and can be used to indicate any action/purposes ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of indicating lightly related object in the result set of Mathieu into category indicators of Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida and Devereux to produce an expected result of providing an additional category type to users to choose from. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to indicate possibly relevant object category so that the search engine can advantageously process content based on whether a content is relevant or irrelevant (Mathieu, 0061-0063).
Claim 10, cancelled.
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu teach all the limitations of claim 9 and Yoshida further teaches wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the computing device, further cause the computing device to: display, responsive to the selecting of the category icon, automatically and without user intervention, the object on a second digital page corresponding to a category associated with the category icon (Yoshida, para 0053 discloses removing or excluding content “After the sliding operation in the first direction is triggered, a portion of new content will be displayed in the display interface area to be presented to the user, and at the same time, a portion of content that has been displayed to the user will be correspondingly removed from the display interface area”; where Fig. 4A para 0024 disclose category icon (pushpin & scissor) associated to each object on the first page to indicate relevancy of objects for removing contents);
Cozzi further teaches receive an additional selection of an additional object from the second plurality of objects in the object list that is modified, the second plurality of objects included on the first digital page; and select an additional category icon from the plurality of category icons included on the first digital page (Cozzi, Fig. 5B and para 0027 objects are being displayed on the new page with removing the excluded items and displayed items having their corresponding category icons (push pin and scissor) to select any category “The search engine may be able to determine one or more user provided preferences based on the user's identity and/or the search terms and may be able to reorder the search results so that the negatively ranked search results are displayed less prominently than other search results. In this example, the negatively ranked search results are not shown in the list of search results”).
Regarding claim 12 (Original), Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu teach all the limitations of claim 11 and Cozzi further teaches wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the computing device, further cause the computing device to further modify the object list that is modified, the further modifying comprising excluding the additional object including in the second plurality of objects included on the first digital page (Cozzi, as disclosed in Fig. 5A, any object can be selected to remove from second page (Fig. 5B) by selecting their corresponding icon).
Regarding claim 14(Previously Presented), Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu teach all the limitations of claim 11 and Cozzi further teaches wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the computing device, further cause the computing device to: receive an additional selection of the object that is displayed on the second digital page corresponding to the category (Cozzi, discloses an updated second digital page 5B where any object can be selected to remove or to indicate relevant on second page by selecting their corresponding icon “scissor” or “push pin”);
and select an additional category icon corresponding to an additional category of the plurality of categories, the additional category icon is displayed on the second digital page(Cozzi, in Fig. 5B already considered selection of “scissor” icon form first page by excluding removed contents; at the second page (fig. 5B) additional category displayed icon (“push pin”) can be selected as well).
Regarding claim 15 (Original), Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu teach all the limitations of claim 14 and Cozzi further teaches wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the computing device, further cause the computing device to further modify, automatically and without user intervention, the second digital page to exclude the object (Cozzi, discloses an updated second digital page 5B where any object can be selected to remove or to indicate relevant on second page by selecting their corresponding icon “scissor” or “push pin”; where Miller in fig. 10 and para 0218 disclose exclusion of objects);
Regarding claim 16 (Previously Presented), Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu teach all the limitations of claim 14 and Cozzi further teaches wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the computing device, further cause the computing device to display, responsive to the selecting of the additional category icon (Cozzi, in Fig. 5B already considered selection of “scissor” icon form first page by excluding removed contents; at the second page (fig. 5B) additional category displayed icon (“push pin”) can be selected as well), automatically and without user intervention, the object on a third digital page corresponding to the additional category of the plurality of categories(Cozzi, similar to teaching of Fig. 4A-B, selecting push-pin/additional category icon would update the second page by having modified content at the top of the list (element 452 in fig. 4B)).
Regarding claim 17(Currently Amended), Venkoba teaches A method comprising: classifying and tagging results of a search query that are displayed in and accessible from a different location(Venkoba, para 0074 discloses categorizing and tagging search results “At step 505, the documents in the query result 518 may be tagged into valid and invalid bucket list based on the set of pre-defined rules. In some embodiments, the documents may be categorized (tagged) based on order of priority” para 0021 further teaches accessing displayed search results from user interface “In some embodiments, the query builder module 209 and the answering module 208 may interact with a user (not shown) by the way of a user interface 210 to receive a query and to present an improved or updated search result to the user”), the search query being deployed via a user interface of a device prior to the classification and tagging(Venkoba, para 0021 discloses search queries being sent via user interface and as results are getting classified and tagged so classification process is taking place after the query gets sent “In some embodiments, the query builder module 209 and the answering module 208 may interact with a user (not shown) by the way of a user interface 210 to receive a query and to present an improved or updated search result to the user”);
But Venkoba does not explicitly teach receiving selection of an object from a first plurality of objects of an object list, wherein the object list has an order of arrangement and is included on a first digital page displayed on the user interface of the device based on the classification and tagging; receiving a first selection of a category icon from a plurality of category icons corresponding to a plurality of categories, wherein the plurality of category icons are included on the first digital page; displaying, responsive to the selecting of the category icon, automatically and without user intervention, the object on a second digital page corresponding to a category associated with the category icon; modifying, automatically and without user intervention, the object list to exclude the object from the first digital page, and inserting a gap at a position of the excluded object; maintaining the order of arrangement of the object list that is modified, wherein the maintaining includes displaying a second plurality of objects included in the object list that is modified on the first digital page in accordance with the order of arrangement and removing the gap after the object list is modified and retaining each position of the first plurality of objects prior to and after the object is excluded; receiving a second selection of a second object from the second plurality of objects in the object list that is modified, the second plurality of objects included on the first digital page; and receiving a third selection of an additional category icon from the plurality of category icons, wherein each of the plurality of objects and the plurality of category icons are positioned within a first box, wherein the plurality of category icons are each positioned in a vertical manner relative to a degree of relevance within a second box that is arranged within the first box, and the plurality of category icons are different, and wherein the plurality of categories include a relevant category, an irrelevant category, and a possibly relevant category that are each associated with each of the different plurality of category icons.
However, in the same field of endeavor of content categorization Cozzi teaches receiving selection of an object from a first plurality of objects of an object list, wherein the object list has an order of arrangement and is included on a first digital page displayed on the user interface of the device based on the classification and tagging(Cozzi, Fig. 4 A para 0024 disclose category icon (pushpin & scissor) associated to each object on the first page to indicate relevancy/irrelevancy of objects “a push pin icon, such as push pin icon 404, may represent an affirmative ranking, while a scissors icon, such as scissors icon 406, may represent a negative ranking. In this example, a user could click on one of the push pin icons to indicate that an adjacent search result is of particular relevance to that user”; where Venkoba in para 0074 discloses categorizing and tagging of contents);
receiving a second selection of a second object from the second plurality of objects in the object list that is modified, the second plurality of objects included on the first digital page(Cozzi, Fig. 5B and para 0027 objects are being displayed on the new page with removing the excluded items and displayed items having their corresponding category icons (push pin and scissor) to select any category “The search engine may be able to determine one or more user provided preferences based on the user's identity and/or the search terms and may be able to reorder the search results so that the negatively ranked search results are displayed less prominently than other search results. In this example, the negatively ranked search results are not shown in the list of search results”); and receiving a third selection of an additional category icon from the plurality of category icons(Cozzi, similar to teaching of Fig. 4A-B, selecting push-pin/additional category icon would update the second page by having modified content at the top of the list (element 452 in fig. 4B)),
Cozzi further teaches displaying, responsive to the selecting of the category icon, automatically and without user intervention, the object on a second digital page corresponding to a category associated with the category icon(Cozzi, discloses an updated second digital page 5B where any object can be selected to remove or to indicate relevant on second page by selecting their corresponding icon “scissor” or “push pin”);
and wherein the plurality of categories include a relevant category, an irrelevant category(Cozzi, Fig. 4 A para 0024 disclose category icon pushpin & scissor associated to each object on the first page to indicate relevancy and irrelevancy of objects “a push pin icon, such as push pin icon 404, may represent an affirmative ranking, while a scissors icon, such as scissors icon 406, may represent a negative ranking”),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of indicating categories on an user interface of Cozzi into classifying and tagging of search results of Venkoba to produce an expected result of displaying contents by their respective categories. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide search results with to users indicating relatedness of retrieved contents to search query (Cozzi, para 0014).
But Venkoba and Cozzi don’t explicitly teach modifying, automatically and without user intervention, the object list to exclude the object from the first digital page, and inserting a gap at a position of the excluded object; maintaining the order of arrangement of the object list that is modified, wherein the maintaining includes displaying a second plurality of objects included in the object list that is modified on the first digital page in accordance with the order of arrangement and removing the gap after the object list is modified and retaining each position of the first plurality of objects prior to and after the object is excluded;
wherein each of the plurality of objects and the plurality of category icons are positioned within a first box, wherein the plurality of category icons are each positioned in a vertical manner relative to a degree of relevance within a second box that is arranged within the first box, and the plurality of category icons are different, and a possibly relevant category that are each associated with each of the different plurality of category icons.
However, in the same field of endeavor of content ordering Yoshida teaches
modifying, automatically and without user intervention, the object list to exclude the object from the first digital page, and inserting a gap at a position of the excluded object; maintaining the order of arrangement of the object list that is modified(Yoshida, para 0053 discloses removing or excluding content “After the sliding operation in the first direction is triggered, a portion of new content will be displayed in the display interface area to be presented to the user, and at the same time, a portion of content that has been displayed to the user will be correspondingly removed from the display interface area.”), wherein the maintaining includes displaying a second plurality of objects included in the object list that is modified on the first digital page in accordance with the order of arrangement and removing the gap after the object list is modified and retaining each position of the first plurality of objects prior to and after the object is excluded(Yoshida, para 0057 discloses removed content is being replaced with a blank content with same size and keeping the same place of the removed content with a blank content; this suggests keeping content display order “The client generates blank content with the same height as the removed content according to the height of the removed content, and replaces the removed content with the blank content, that is, replaces the removed content with blank content with the same height as the removed content.”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of removing content form a page of Yoshida into search result list with category indicators of Venkoba and Cozzi to produce an expected result of removing irrelevant result item from a list. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce the resources needed for page rendering by replacing removed content by blank content(Yoshida, para 0008).
But Venkoba, Cozzi and Yoshida don’t explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of objects and the plurality of category icons are positioned within a first box, wherein the plurality of category icons are each positioned in a vertical manner relative to a degree of relevance within a second box that is arranged within the first box, and the plurality of category icons are different, and a possibly relevant category that are each associated with each of the different plurality of category icons.
However, in the same field of endeavor of content organization Devereux teaches wherein each of the plurality of objects and the plurality of category icons are positioned within a first box, wherein the plurality of category icons are each positioned in a vertical manner relative to a degree of relevance within a second box that is arranged within the first box(Devereux, discloses other contents/objects and group of vertically arranged category icons in a second box 408 are getting displayed within a bigger box 130, the icons are HTML object on a HTML page so they can by positioned/arranged in any ordered on a displaying page), and the plurality of category icons are different(Devereux, discloses a group of vertically arranged category different icons are getting displayed within a bigger box (130)),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of displaying items with their respective categories in a box of Devereux into search result list with category indicators of Venkoba, Cozzi and Yoshida to produce an expected result of displaying item’s selected category. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to display part of web contents in a collapsible manner so that contents can be advantageously provide full view of the webpage contents while providing quick access to navigation tab control icons (Devereux, para 0091).
But Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida and Devereux don’t explicitly teach and a possibly relevant category that are each associated with each of the different plurality of category icons.
However, in the same field of endeavor of search result ordering Mathieu teaches and a possibly relevant category that are each associated with each of the different plurality of category icons(Mathieu, para 0144 discloses a possibly relevant category/neutral button to indicate somewhat similar contents “in particular possible to provide additional relevant signaling means, for example a "neutral" button, in addition to means making it possible to indicate the relevance and/or irrelevance”; where any icon are labels and can be used to indicate any action/purposes ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of indicating lightly related object in the result set of Mathieu into category indicators of Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida and Devereux to produce an expected result of providing an additional category type to users to choose from. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to indicate possibly relevant object category so that the search engine can advantageously process content based on whether a content is relevant or irrelevant (Mathieu, 0061-0063).
Claim 18, cancelled.
Regarding claim 19 (Original), Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu teach all the limitations of claim 17 and Cozzi further teaches further comprising: receiving a fourth selection of an additional object from the second plurality of objects in the object list that is modified, the second plurality of objects included on the first digital page; and receiving a fifth selection of a second category icon from the plurality of category icons (Cozzi, in Fig. 5B already considered selection of “scissor” icon form first page by excluding removed contents; at the second page (fig. 5B) additional category displayed icon (“push pin”) can be selected (second category as fifth selection) as well).
Claim 5, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkoba, Rao et al (PGPUB Document No. 20200265055 ), hereafter referred as to “Venkoba”, in view of Cozzi, Alex (PGPUB Document No. 20090234834), hereafter, referred to as “Cozzi”, in view of Yoshida, Masako (PGPUB Document No. 20200099796 ), hereafter, referred to as “Yoshida”, in view of Devereux, William et al (PGPUB Document No. 20220092133), hereafter, referred to as “Devereux”, in view of Mathieu, Eric, et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140358969), hereafter, referred to as “Mathieu”, in further view of Hardt, Dick et al (PGPUB Document No. 20090216749), hereafter, referred to as “Hardt”.
Regarding claim 5(Original), Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu teach all the limitations of claim 4 but don’t explicitly teach further comprising further maintaining the order of arrangement of the object list that is further modified, the further maintaining including displaying in accordance with the order of arrangement, on the first digital page, a third plurality of objects in the object list that is further modified.
However, in the same field of endeavor of search result ordering Hardt teaches further comprising further maintaining the order of arrangement of the object list that is further modified, the further maintaining including displaying in accordance with the order of arrangement, on the first digital page, a third plurality of objects in the object list that is further modified (Hardt, Fig. 4 para 0032 disclose upon removal/dismissal of an item, remaining list gets re-ordered automatically/dynamically and which will be applicable to modified second page as well “This can cause a dynamic re-ordering of the filtered data due to a change in the context. Upon dismissing a result, the remaining search results can be reordered”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of removing irrelevant content form a search result list and re-ordering the remaining list of Hardt into search result list with category indicators of Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu to produce an expected result of removing irrelevant result item from a list. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to process content filter locally using various user related data for determining search context to avoid exposure of users’ private information(Hardt, para 0008-0011).
Regarding claim 13(Original), Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu teach all the limitations of claim 12 but don’t explicitly teach wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the computing device, further cause the computing device to further maintain the order of arrangement of the object list that is further modified, the further maintaining including displaying in accordance with the order of arrangement, on the first digital page, a third plurality of objects in the object list that is further modified.
However, in the same field of endeavor of search result ordering Hardt teaches wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the computing device, further cause the computing device to further maintain the order of arrangement of the object list that is further modified, the further maintaining including displaying in accordance with the order of arrangement, on the first digital page, a third plurality of objects in the object list that is further modified (Hardt, Fig. 4 para 0032 disclose upon removal/dismissal of an item, remaining list gets re-ordered automatically/dynamically and which will be applicable to modified second page as well “This can cause a dynamic re-ordering of the filtered data due to a change in the context. Upon dismissing a result, the remaining search results can be reordered”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of removing irrelevant content form a search result list and re-ordering the remaining list of Hardt into search result list with category indicators of Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu to produce an expected result of removing irrelevant result item from a list. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to process content filter locally using various user related data for determining search context to avoid exposure of users’ private information(Hardt, para 0008-0011).
Regarding claim 20(Original), Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu teach all the limitations of claim 19 but don’t explicitly teach further comprising further modifying the object list that is modified, the further modifying comprising excluding the additional object included in the second plurality of objects included on the first digital page.
However, in the same field of endeavor of search result ordering Hardt teaches further comprising further modifying the object list that is modified, the further modifying comprising excluding the additional object included in the second plurality of objects included on the first digital page (Hardt, element 184 of Fig. 4 and para 0031 disclose excluding/removing result object from any page “A browser window 180 displays search results such as result 182 that may contain both a result header and a brief caption of the result page, in addition to an icon 184 that allows the use to dismiss the search result”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of removing irrelevant content form a search result list and re-ordering the remaining list of Hardt into search result list with category indicators of Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu to produce an expected result of removing irrelevant result item from a list. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to process content filter locally using various user related data for determining search context to avoid exposure of users’ private information(Hardt, para 0008-0011).
Claim 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkoba, Rao et al (PGPUB Document No. 20200265055 ), hereafter referred as to “Venkoba”, in view of Cozzi, Alex (PGPUB Document No. 20090234834), hereafter, referred to as “Cozzi”, in view of Yoshida, Masako (PGPUB Document No. 20200099796 ), hereafter, referred to as “Yoshida”, in view of Devereux, William et al (PGPUB Document No. 20220092133), hereafter, referred to as “Devereux”, in view of Mathieu, Eric, et al (PGPUB Document No. 20140358969), hereafter, referred to as “Mathieu”, in further view of Yu, Xiaobo (PGPUB Document No. 20190095056), hereafter, referred to as “Yu”.
Regarding Claim 21(Previously Presented), Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu teach all the limitations of claim 1 but don’t explicitly teach further comprising maintaining a location of the objects in the modified object list after excluding the object from the first digital page.
However, in the same field of endeavor of content positioning Yu teaches teach further comprising maintaining a location of the objects in the modified object list after excluding the object from the first digital page (Yu, para 0174 discloses maintaining the original display position upon update “If an update instruction for the target object is received, the processor 160 shields or refuses a part that is in the update instruction and that is for updating the display location, receives only update content (such as SMS message content or a chat message) in the update instruction, and keeps the display location of the target object in the dynamic list unchanged”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of maintaining the original position of updated contents of Yu into removed search result display of Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu to produce an expected result of retaining same location of the contents in updated/final display list. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve user experience by not confusing users with changing content/item location and by preventing users not to select wrong movable object (Yu, para 0002).
Regarding Claim 22(Previously Presented), Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu teach all the limitations of claim 9 but don’t explicitly wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the computing device, further cause the computing device to maintain a location of the objects in the modified object list after excluding the object from the first digital page.
However, in the same field of endeavor of content positioning Yu teaches teach wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the computing device, further cause the computing device to maintain a location of the objects in the modified object list after excluding the object from the first digital page (Yu, para 0174 discloses maintaining the original display position upon update “If an update instruction for the target object is received, the processor 160 shields or refuses a part that is in the update instruction and that is for updating the display location, receives only update content (such as SMS message content or a chat message) in the update instruction, and keeps the display location of the target object in the dynamic list unchanged”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of maintaining the original position of updated contents of Yu into removed search result display of Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu to produce an expected result of retaining same location of the contents in updated/final display list. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve user experience by not confusing users with changing content/item location and by preventing users not to select wrong movable object (Yu, para 0002).
Regarding Claim 23(Previously Presented), Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu teach all the limitations of claim 17 but don’t explicitly teach further comprising maintaining a location of the objects in the modified object list after excluding the object from the first digital page.
However, in the same field of endeavor of content positioning Yu teaches teach further comprising maintaining a location of the objects in the modified object list after excluding the object from the first digital page (Yu, para 0174 discloses maintaining the original display position upon update “If an update instruction for the target object is received, the processor 160 shields or refuses a part that is in the update instruction and that is for updating the display location, receives only update content (such as SMS message content or a chat message) in the update instruction, and keeps the display location of the target object in the dynamic list unchanged”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of maintaining the original position of updated contents of Yu into removed search result display of Venkoba, Cozzi, Yoshida, Devereux and Mathieu to produce an expected result of retaining same location of the contents in updated/final display list. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve user experience by not confusing users with changing content/item location and by preventing users not to select wrong movable object (Yu, para 0002).
Response to Arguments
I. 35 U.S.C §101
The U.S.C §101 Abstract idea rejection to claim 1, 3-9, 11-17 and 19-23 has been withdrawn in light of applicant argument consideration and amendments to independent claim 1, 9 and 17.
II. 35 U.S.C §103
Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but are
moot because the independent claim 1, 9 and 17 have been amended with newly added
features which applicant’s arguments are directed towards. Since claims have been amended with new features, a new ground of rejection is presented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ABDULLAH A DAUD whose telephone number is (469)295-9283. The examiner can normally be reached M~F: 9:30 am~6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached at 571-270-1698. 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.
/ABDULLAH A DAUD/Examiner, Art Unit 2164
/AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights