DETAILED ACTION
Amendment submitted December 22, 2025 has been considered by examiner. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, 15-17 and 21-26 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-23 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.
Applicant's arguments towards claims 24-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 24
The Applicant states that the cited art does not disclose “wherein a level of specificity of the search query is based on a number of categories responsive to the search query.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Umeda [0089-0091] discussed “whether or not the number of categories to which the products retrieved as the search result (the products outputted by the list output unit 53) belong exceeds a threshold for the number of categories…” That is interpreted that there are a particular number of categories to which a query belongs to in order to identify a proper search result, which is consistent with the language of the instant claim.
Claim 25
The Applicant states that the cited art does not disclose “wherein the level of specificity is based on a number of leaf categories responsive to the search query.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A leaf category seems to imply sub categories, as described in the instant specification at [0068-0069]. Umeda [0017, 0099] discloses identifying certain categories in a hierarchical structure (i.e. sub-categories). Those sub-categories are also counted to identify a particular number of categories to which a query belongs to in order to determine a proper search result as in Claim 24.
Claim 26
The Applicant states that the cited art does not disclose “wherein the second search query corresponds to a second level of specificity, and the second level of specificity satisfies a threshold level of specificity based on a number of categories responsive to the second search query.”
However, Umeda [0091] discloses identifying relevant search results based on a threshold number of categories to which the search results belong. As to identifying relevant search results for a second query, see at least Fein (Col 4 ln 4-16).
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.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 13, 15, 17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakib et al (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0005118) in view of Fein et al (US Patent 7,849,096) and further in view of Pinckney et al (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0302117).
Claims 1 and 17: Shakib discloses a system and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising:
receiving a search query from a device, wherein search queries query a database to retrieve information from the database for presentation as search results [0025].
providing, a first set of search refinement options comprising a plurality of search refinement options for the search query, wherein search refinement options refine search queries [Fig. 6, 0033]. [See at least refinement options.]
Shakib alone does not explicitly disclose the rest of the claim features.
However, Pinckney [0140] discloses a visual interface element that switches a user interface between a first set of search results corresponding to the search query. Specifically, Pinckney discloses “switching to a Q&A interface, based on the search results from a keyword search ask follow up questions 1320 to narrow down or re-rank the results.”
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shakib with Pinckney. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a particular type of interfacing with a search refinement menu to provide a user with relevant search results.
Fein further discloses:
constructing a second search query from the selection of more than one search refinement option, wherein the second search query is different from the search query such that the second search query retrieves different information from the database than the search query when the database is queried by the second search query (Col 4 ln 4-16). [See at least a refined search based on “another search selection.” That means that the second query retrieves different results than the first one.]
conducting a search of information stored in the database using the second search query (Col 4 ln 4-16). [See at least a refined search based on “another search selection.”]
providing the information as search results, for the second search query (Col 4 ln 4-16). [Also see Shakib [Fig. 6, 0033].]
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shakib with Fein. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide more relevant results to a user based on particular refinement options.
Claims 5 and 23: Shakib as modified discloses the system and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claims 1 and 17 above, and Fein, for the same reason as above, further discloses:
providing, based at least in part on the search query and the selection, an additional set of search refinement options (Col 4 ln 4-16). [See at least a refined search based on “another search selection.”]
receiving one or more additional selections for one or more search refinement options of the additional set, wherein the second search query is further constructed from the one or more additional selections (Col 4 ln 4-23).
Claim 6: Shakib as modified discloses the system of Claim 1, and Shakib wherein the selection comprises indications of approval, disapproval, non-approval, or a combination thereof, each of the indications associated with a search refinement option of the first set of search refinement options [0032-0033]. [See at least selecting of at least some of the refinement options and non-selection of others.]
Claim 9: Shakib discloses a computer implemented method comprising:
receiving a search query from a device [0025].
providing, by one or more processors based at least in part on a level of specificity of the search query, a first set of search refinement options comprising a plurality of search refinement options [Fig. 6, 0033]. [See at least refinement options.]
receiving a selection of more than one search refinement option from the first set of search refinement options [Fig. 6, 0033]. [See at least selection of the refinement options.]
Shakib alone does not explicitly disclose the rest of the claim features.
However, Pinckney [0140] discloses providing a visual interface element that switches a user interface between a first set of search results corresponding to the search query and the first set of search refinement options. Specifically, Pinckney discloses “switching to a Q&A interface, based on the search results from a keyword search ask follow up questions 1320 to narrow down or re-rank the results.”
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shakib with Pinckney. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a particular type of interfacing with a search refinement menu to provide a user with relevant search results.
Fein further discloses:
constructing a second search query from the selection of more than one search refinement option (Col 4 ln 4-16). [See at least a refined search based on “another search selection.”]
conducting a search of information stored in a database using the second search query (Col 4 ln 4-16). [See at least a refined search based on “another search selection.”]
providing the information as search results (Col 4 ln 4-16). [Also see Shakib [Fig. 6, 0033].]
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shakib with Fein. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide more relevant results to a user based on particular refinement options.
Claim 13: Shakib as modified discloses the method of Claim 9 above, and Fein, for the same reason as above, further discloses:
providing, based at least in part on the search query and the selection, an additional set of search refinement options (Col 4 ln 4-16). [See at least a refined search based on “another search selection.”]
receiving one or more additional selections for one or more search refinement options of the additional set, wherein the second search query is further constructed from the one or more additional selections (Col 4 ln 4-23).
Claim 15: Shakib as modified discloses the method of Claim 9, and Shakib wherein the selection comprises indications of approval, disapproval, non-approval, or a combination thereof, each of the indications associated with a search refinement option of the first set of search refinement options [0032-0033]. [See at least selecting of at least some of the refinement options and non-selection of others.]
Claims 2, 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakib et al (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0005118) in view of Fein et al (US Patent 7,849,096) further in view of Pinckney et al (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0302117) and further in view of Stepinski et al (US Patent 8,577,911).
Claims 2, 10 and 21: Shakib as modified discloses the system, the method and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claims 1, 9 and 20 above, but Shakib alone does not explicitly disclose determining, using a machine learning algorithm, search refinement options based on wherein the provided first set of search refinement options includes the search refinement options determined from the machine learning algorithm based on the user history.
However, Stepinski (Col 8 ln 39-43) discloses using a user search history to provide query refinement options.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shakib with Stepinski. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide query suggestions closer to what a user is looking for.
Claims 3, 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakib et al (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0005118) in view of Fein et al (US Patent 7,849,096) further in view of Pinckney et al (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0302117) and further in view of Redfern et al (US Patent Publication 2014/0081993).
Claims 3 and 22: Shakib as modified discloses the system and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claims 1 and 17 above but Shakib alone does not explicitly disclose determining that a level of specificity of the search query does not satisfy a threshold level of specificity based at least in part on a word count of the search query, and providing the first set of search refinement options based on the search query not satisfying the threshold level of specificity.
However, Redfern [0051, Table 1] discloses classifying a query as vague if it is below a particular word count and Shakib [0027] discloses providing refinement options based at least on a particular threshold.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shakib with Redfern. One would have been motivated to do so in order to make sure that a user inputs a query that is able to get results for a user.
Claim 11: Shakib as modified discloses the method of Claim 9 above but Shakib alone does not explicitly disclose determining that the level of specificity of the search query does not satisfy a threshold level of specificity based at least in part on a word count of the search query.
However, Redfern [0051, Table 1] discloses classifying a query as vague if it is below a particular word count.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shakib with Redfern. One would have been motivated to do so in order to make sure that a user inputs a query that is able to get results for a user.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakib et al (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0005118) in view of Fein et al (US Patent 7,849,096) further in view of Pinckney et al (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0302117) further in view of Rakshit (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0131032) and further in view of Venolia (US Patent Application Publication 2010/0125573).
Claim 7: Shakib as modified discloses the system of Claim 1, but Shakib alone does not explicitly disclose generating user response icons corresponding to the first set of search refinement options, each search refinement option having an approval response icon and a disapproval response icon.
However, However, Shakib [0033] discloses generating query refinement options based at least on the query; Rakshit [Fig. 4, 0022] discloses providing feedback icons (such as thumb up) for query suggestions and Venolia [0029-0030] discloses using thumbs up and thumbs down for providing feedback on search results for further search refinement.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shakib with Rakshit. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide more useful query suggestions for a query.
Claim 16: Shakib as modified discloses the system of Claim 9, but Shakib alone does not explicitly disclose generating user response icons corresponding to the first set of search refinement options, each search refinement option having an approval response icon and a disapproval response icon.
However, However, Shakib [0033] discloses generating query refinement options based at least on the query; Rakshit [Fig. 4, 0022] discloses providing feedback icons (such as thumb up) for query suggestions and Venolia [0029-0030] discloses using thumbs up and thumbs down for providing feedback on search results for further search refinement.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shakib with Rakshit. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide more useful query suggestions for a query.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakib et al (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0005118) in view of Fein et al (US Patent 7,849,096) further in view of Pinckney et al (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0302117) and further in view of Krynski et al (US Patent 8,370,319).
Claim 8: Shakib as modified discloses the system of Claim 1 above, but Shakib alone does not explicitly disclose determining that the second search query satisfies a threshold level of specificity, wherein the search of information is conducted based on the second search query satisfying the threshold level of specificity.
However, Fein (Col 4 ln 4-16) discloses the second search query and Krynski (Col 12 ln 31-41, further discloses identifying whether a query specificity level and providing search results “that are consistent with the search query in light of the specificity score.” Krynski (Col 13 ln 38-49) also discusses a search based on whether it is at a particular threshold and then searching based on the specificity of the query.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shakib with Krynski. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide relevant results to a user based on “the users’ intentions.”
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakib et al (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0005118) in view of Fein et al (US Patent 7,849,096) further in view of Pinckney et al (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0302117) and further in view of Umeda (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0088862).
Claim 24: Shakib as modified discloses the system of Claim 1 above, but Shakib alone does not explicitly disclose wherein a level of specificity of the search query is based on a number of categories responsive to the search query.
However, Umeda [0091] discloses identifying relevant search results based on a number of categories to which the search results belong.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shakib with Umeda. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide more focused results to a user.
Claim 25: Shakib as modified discloses the system of Claim 24 above, and Umeda, for the same reasons as above, further discloses wherein the level of specificity is based on a number of leaf categories responsive to the search query [0017, 0099].
Claim 26: Shakib as modified discloses the system of Claim 24 above, and Umeda, for the same reasons as above, further discloses wherein the second search query corresponds to a second level of specificity, and the second level of specificity satisfies a threshold level of specificity based on a number of categories responsive to the second search query [Umeda [0091] discloses identifying relevant search results based on a threshold number of categories to which the search results belong. As to identifying relevant search results for a second query, see at least Fein (Col 4 ln 4-16).]
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 ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163