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
Applicant’s Amendments, filed December 29, 2025, have been entered. Claims 1, 9 and 17 have been amended, and claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pp. 1-2, filed December 29, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jones et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0037410 A1, hereinafter “Jones”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 8-12, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copty (Patent No. US 8,200,655 B2, hereinafter “Copty”) in view of Naidu (WO 2018/069811 A1, hereinafter “Naidu”) further in view of Jones.
Regarding claim 1, Copty teaches:
receiving, by a computing system, a request to test accuracy of a first search integration component for a first system of record, (Copty – see Col. 6 lines 59-62, where a database query is obtained by a query obtainer. Also see Col. 7, lines 38-43, where the testing module initiates the database query against a database using a database management system DBMS (i.e. first system of record).)
in response to the request, sending, from the computing system [to the first API endpoint, at least a first API call corresponding to] at least a first search query [identified in a judgment list, the judgment list further] including first data indicating a relevancy of at least one file of the test corpus of files to the first search query (Copty – see Col. 6 lines 59-62, where in Fig. 3, step 310, a database query is obtained by a query obtainer. Also see Col. 7, lines 38-43, where in Fig. 3, step 340, the testing module initiates the database query (i.e. sending) against a database using a database management system DBMS. Also see Col. 6 lines 63-67, Col. 7 lines 1-10, where data records (i.e. test corpus of files) are generated based on the database query obtained by the query obtainer in Fig. 3, step 310. A first portion of the more than one data record may be characterized in that it complies with a set of constraints forced by the database query (i.e. indicating relevancy). A second portion of the more than one data record may be characterized in that it complies with a first subset of the set of constraints forced by the database query and does not comply with a second subset. Also see Col. 7 lines 24-37, where in Fig. 3, step 330, a database is updated to include the data records (i.e. test corpus of files) that were generated based on the database query. Examiner interprets that the first and second portion of data records, characterized by compliance with a set of constraints forced by the database query, disclose relevancy of each record to the first search query.)
receiving, by the computing system and from the first search integration component, a [first API response to the first API call, the first API] response identifying one or more files stored by the first system of record (Copty – see Col. 7 lines 40-43, where the result by the DBMS is received by the testing module.)
and determining, by the computing system, a first accuracy [score] for the first search integration component based at least in part the first data and the one or more files identified in the [first API] response (Copty – see Col. 7 lines 44-62, where the results returned by the DBMS are evaluated to determine whether the operation of the DBMS was correct. The data record requires there to be at most a predetermined number of results or an exact number of results (i.e. accuracy). Subject matter (i.e. first data), the number of returned data records may be inspected to determine whether the DMBS performed as expected.)
Copty does not appear to teach:
the first search integration component being configured to receive, at a first application programming interface (API) endpoint and from one or more devices, first incoming API calls representing search queries,
to translate the first incoming API calls into first outgoing API calls to be sent to the first system of record,
to send the first outgoing API calls to one or more second API endpoints of the first system of record, to receive, from the first system of record, first incoming API responses to the first outgoing API calls,
to translate the first incoming API responses into first outgoing API responses representing search query results,
and to send the first outgoing API responses to the one or more devices
determining, by the computing system, that a test corpus of files has been stored by the first system of record
to the first API endpoint, at least a first API call corresponding to
identified in a judgment list, the judgment list further
first API response to the first API call, the first API
accuracy score
first API response
wherein the judgement list comprises one or more tuples, each tuple associating a query value to be used in an accuracy test, a file value identifying a file within the test corpus of files, and a grade value indicating whether the file within the test corpus of files is a correct match for the query value
However Naidu teaches:
the first search integration component being configured to receive, at a first application programming interface (API) endpoint and from one or more devices, first incoming API calls representing search queries, (Naidu – see [48], where the system 100 for retrieving data comprises a parser 110, an API call executor 120, a query engine 130, an interface 150, and may be a cloud-hosted system or distributed system. Also see [51-52], where the parser is configured to receive a query from a user 300 via the interface 150. The interface may be a network interface, such as an API, which is configured to receive a query from a system operated by the user over a suitable network connection.)
to translate the first incoming API calls into first outgoing API calls to be sent to the first system of record, (Naidu – see [57-60], where the parser 110 is configured to access stored data listing aliases and detailing the correspondence between the alias and an API call. The endpoint reference storage 161 comprises a list of aliases and a list of corresponding API calls, thereby providing a mapping between each alias and the corresponding API calls, which may be stored in a database. The parser 110 uses the list of aliases to identify aliases in the query. The parser 110 is configured to transform the query (i.e. translate) into a data structure, such as a parse tree, abstract syntax tree or other hierarchical structure. For each alias that is discovered in the query, the parser 110 adds the corresponding API call (i.e. first outgoing API calls) to a list. Once the query has been fully parsed, the parser 110 is configured to pass the list to the API call executor.)
to send the first outgoing API calls to one or more second API endpoints of the first system of record, to receive, from the first system of record, first incoming API responses to the first outgoing API calls, (Naidu – see [61-62], where the API call executor 120 is configured to execute the calls to each of the API endpoints 212 (i.e. second API endpoints) specified in the list and retrieve the results (i.e. first incoming API responses).)
to translate the first incoming API responses into first outgoing API responses representing search query results, (Naidu – see [63-70], where the API call executor is configured to store the retrieved results in the storage. The API call executor 120 is configured to parse the result of each API call, so as to extract the data so it may be more easily entered into the database or stored by other means. In examples where the results are stored in a database in the call result storage, the query engine runs the query against the database, for example by replacing the aliases in the query with references to the tables in the database in which the relevant results of the API calls are stored. The query engine 130 is configured to provide the results (i.e. translated first incoming API responses) to user 300 via the interface 150 (i.e. first outgoing API responses).)
and to send the first outgoing API responses to the one or more devices (Naidu – see [70], where the query engine 130 is configured to provide the results to user 300 via the interface 150, and where the interface 150 comprises a network interface, the results may be provided to the system operated by the user in a message of a suitable protocol.)
determining, by the computing system, that a test corpus of files has been stored by the first system of record (Naidu – see [76], where the API endpoints 212a-c (i.e. first system of record) may be configured to make a service definition available. The service definition describes the type of information (i.e. test corpus of files) that is made available. The definition includes the URI of the endpoint, an alias that effectively acts as a service title that broadly defines the type of the entity (e.g. Customer, Employee, Payee etc) served by the service, and the names of the fields made available by the endpoint.)
to the first API endpoint, at least a first API call corresponding to (Naidu – see [48], where the system 100 for retrieving data comprises a parser 110, an API call executor 120, a query engine 130, an interface 150, and may be a cloud-hosted system or distributed system. Also see [51-52], where the parser is configured to receive a query from a user 300 via the interface 150. The interface may be a network interface, such as an API, which is configured to receive a query from a system operated by the user over a suitable network connection.)
first API response to the first API call, the first API (Naidu – see [61-62], where the API call executor 120 is configured to execute the calls to each of the API endpoints 212 (i.e. second API endpoints) specified in the list and retrieve the results (i.e. first incoming API responses).)
first API response (Naidu – see [61-62], where the API call executor 120 is configured to execute the calls to each of the API endpoints 212 (i.e. second API endpoints) specified in the list and retrieve the results (i.e. first incoming API responses).)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Copty and Naidu before them, to modify the system of Copty with the teachings of Naidu as shown above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to abstract the client from the particular DBMS being used (Naidu - [04]).
Copty modified by Naidu does not appear to teach:
identified in a judgment list, the judgment list further
accuracy score
wherein the judgement list comprises one or more tuples, each tuple associating a query value to be used in an accuracy test, a file value identifying a file within the test corpus of files, and a grade value indicating whether the file within the test corpus of files is a correct match for the query value
However, Jones teaches:
identified in a judgment list, the judgment list further (Jones – the relevance data store maintains one or more records (i.e. judgement list) that indicate a relevance judgement for a given query-content item pair. For example, a given record in the relevance data store may indicate that the query term “patent” and the content item at the address www.uspto.gov are highly relevant to each other. Accordingly, relevance takes the form of a set of ordinal values that indicate decreasing order of relevance, e.g., 1 = highly relevant, 2 = somewhat relevant, 3 = relevant, 4 = less relevant and 5 = not relevant [0019].)
accuracy score (Jones – the method uses the relevance data obtained on the basis of human judgments in conjunction with relevance judgments derived from clicks (using the modeled relationship between clicks and relevance) to estimate a DCG score (i.e. accuracy score) for one or more search engines, a given search engine which may implement or otherwise apply disparate content item relevance functions [0047].)
wherein the judgement list comprises one or more tuples, each tuple associating a query value to be used in an accuracy test, a file value identifying a file within the test corpus of files, and a grade value indicating whether the file within the test corpus of files is a correct match for the query value (Jones – the relevance data store maintains one or more records (i.e. judgement list) that indicate a relevance judgement for a given query-content item pair. For example, a given record (i.e. tuple) in the relevance data store may indicate that the query term “patent” (i.e. query value) and the content item at the address www.uspto.gov (i.e. file value) are highly relevant to each other. Accordingly, relevance takes the form of a set of ordinal values that indicate decreasing order of relevance, e.g., 1 = highly relevant, 2 = somewhat relevant, 3 = relevant, 4 = less relevant and 5 = not relevant (i.e. grade value) [0019].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Copty, Naidu and Jones before them, to modify the system of Copty and Naidu with the teachings of Jones, as shown above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to predict the relevance of a given content item (Jones - [0003]).
Claims 9 and 17 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 2, Copty teaches:
receiving, by the computing system, a second request to test accuracy of a second search integration component for a second system of record, (Copty – see Col. 6 lines 59-62, where a database query is obtained by a query obtainer. Also see Col. 7, lines 38-43, where the testing module initiates the database query against a database using a database management system DBMS (i.e. second system of record, see Col. 1 lines 6-8, where the present disclosure relates to database management systems in general, and to testing database managements systems, in particular).
in response to the request, sending, from the computing system [to the third API endpoint, at least a second API call corresponding to] at least the first search query [identified in the judgment list] (Copty – see Col. 6 lines 59-62, where in Fig. 3, step 310, a database query is obtained by a query obtainer. Also see Col. 7, lines 38-43, where in Fig. 3, step 340, the testing module initiates the database query (i.e. sending) against a database using a database management system DBMS. Also see Col. 6 lines 63-67, Col. 7 lines 1-10, where data records (i.e. test corpus of files) are generated based on the database query obtained by the query obtainer in Fig. 3, step 310. A first portion of the more than one data record may be characterized in that it complies with a set of constraints forced by the database query (i.e. indicating relevancy). A second portion of the more than one data record may be characterized in that it complies with a first subset of the set of constraints forced by the database query and does not comply with a second subset. Also see Col. 7 lines 24-37, where in Fig. 3, step 330, a database is updated to include the data records (i.e. test corpus of files) that were generated based on the database query. Examiner interprets that the first and second portion of data records, characterized by compliance with a set of constraints forced by the database query, disclose relevancy of each record to the first search query.)
receiving, by the computing system and from the second search integration component, a [second API response to the second API call, the second API] response identifying one or more files stored by the second system of record (Copty – see Col. 7 lines 40-43, where the result by the DBMS is received by the testing module.)
and determining, by the computing system, a second accuracy [score] for the second search integration component based at least in part the first data and the one or more files identified in the [second API] response (Copty – see Col. 7 lines 44-62, where the results returned by the DBMS are evaluated to determine whether the operation of the DBMS was correct. The data record requires there to be at most a predetermined number of results or an exact number of results (i.e. accuracy). Subject matter (i.e. first data), the number of returned data records may be inspected to determine whether the DMBS performed as expected.)
Copty does not appear to teach:
the second search integration component being configured to receive, at a third API endpoint and from the one or more devices, second incoming API calls representing search queries,
to translate the second incoming API calls into second outgoing API calls to be sent to the second system of record,
to send the second outgoing API calls to one or more fourth API endpoints of the second system of record, to receive, from the second system of record, second incoming API responses to the second outgoing API calls,
to translate the second incoming API responses into second outgoing API responses representing search query results,
and to send the second outgoing API responses to the one or more devices
determining, by the computing system, that the test corpus of files has been stored by the second system of record
However Naidu teaches:
the second search integration component being configured to receive, at a third API endpoint and from the one or more devices, second incoming API calls representing search queries, (Naidu – see [48], where the system 100 for retrieving data comprises a parser 110, an API call executor 120, a query engine 130, an interface 150, and may be a cloud-hosted system or distributed system. Also see [51-52], where the parser is configured to receive a query from a user 300 via the interface 150. The interface may be a network interface, such as an API, which is configured to receive a query from a system operated by the user over a suitable network connection.)
to translate the second incoming API calls into second outgoing API calls to be sent to the second system of record, (Naidu – see [57-60], where the parser 110 is configured to access stored data listing aliases and detailing the correspondence between the alias and an API call. The endpoint reference storage 161 comprises a list of aliases and a list of corresponding API calls, thereby providing a mapping between each alias and the corresponding API calls, which may be stored in a database. The parser 110 uses the list of aliases to identify aliases in the query. The parser 110 is configured to transform the query (i.e. translate) into a data structure, such as a parse tree, abstract syntax tree or other hierarchical structure. For each alias that is discovered in the query, the parser 110 adds the corresponding API call (i.e. second outgoing API calls) to a list. Once the query has been fully parsed, the parser 110 is configured to pass the list to the API call executor.)
to send the second outgoing API calls to one or more fourth API endpoints of the second system of record, to receive, from the second system of record, second incoming API responses to the second outgoing API calls, (Naidu – see [61-62], where the API call executor 120 is configured to execute the calls to each of the API endpoints 212 (i.e. fourth API endpoints) specified in the list and retrieve the results (i.e. second incoming API responses).)
to translate the second incoming API responses into second outgoing API responses representing search query results, (Naidu – see [63-70], where the API call executor is configured to store the retrieved results in the storage. The API call executor 120 is configured to parse the result of each API call, so as to extract the data so it may be more easily entered into the database or stored by other means. In examples where the results are stored in a database in the call result storage, the query engine runs the query against the database, for example by replacing the aliases in the query with references to the tables in the database in which the relevant results of the API calls are stored. The query engine 130 is configured to provide the results (i.e. translated second incoming API responses) to user 300 via the interface 150 (i.e. second outgoing API responses).)
and to send the second outgoing API responses to the one or more devices (Naidu – see [70], where the query engine 130 is configured to provide the results to user 300 via the interface 150, and where the interface 150 comprises a network interface, the results may be provided to the system operated by the user in a message of a suitable protocol.)
determining, by the computing system, that the test corpus of files has been stored by the second system of record (Naidu – see [76], where the API endpoints 212a-c (i.e. second system of record) may be configured to make a service definition available. The service definition describes the type of information (i.e. test corpus of files) that is made available. The definition includes the URI of the endpoint, an alias that effectively acts as a service title that broadly defines the type of the entity (e.g. Customer, Employee, Payee etc) served by the service, and the names of the fields made available by the endpoint.)
to the third API endpoint, at least a second API call corresponding to (Naidu – see [48], where the system 100 for retrieving data comprises a parser 110, an API call executor 120, a query engine 130, an interface 150, and may be a cloud-hosted system or distributed system. Also see [51-52], where the parser is configured to receive a query from a user 300 via the interface 150. The interface may be a network interface, such as an API, which is configured to receive a query from a system operated by the user over a suitable network connection.)
second API response to the second API call, the second API (Naidu – see [61-62], where the API call executor 120 is configured to execute the calls to each of the API endpoints 212 (i.e. second API endpoints) specified in the list and retrieve the results (i.e. second incoming API responses).)
second API response (Naidu – see [61-62], where the API call executor 120 is configured to execute the calls to each of the API endpoints 212 (i.e. fourth API endpoints) specified in the list and retrieve the results (i.e. second incoming API responses).)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Copty, Naidu and Jones before them, to modify the system of Copty, Naidu and Jones with the teachings of Naidu, as shown above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to abstract the client from the particular DBMS being used (Naidu - [04]).
Copty modified by Naidu does not appear to teach:
identified in the judgment list
accuracy score
However, Jones teaches:
identified in the judgment list (Jones – the relevance data store maintains one or more records (i.e. judgement list) that indicate a relevance judgement for a given query-content item pair. For example, a given record in the relevance data store may indicate that the query term “patent” and the content item at the address www.uspto.gov are highly relevant to each other. Accordingly, relevance takes the form of a set of ordinal values that indicate decreasing order of relevance, e.g., 1 = highly relevant, 2 = somewhat relevant, 3 = relevant, 4 = less relevant and 5 = not relevant [0019].)
accuracy score (Jones – the method uses the relevance data obtained on the basis of human judgments in conjunction with relevance judgments derived from clicks (using the modeled relationship between clicks and relevance) to estimate a DCG score (i.e. accuracy score) for one or more search engines, a given search engine which may implement or otherwise apply disparate content item relevance functions [0047].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Copty, Naidu and Jones before them, to modify the system of Copty, Naidu and Jones with the teachings of Jones, as shown above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to predict the relevance of a given content item (Jones - [0003]).
Claim 10 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 3, Copty does not appear to teach:
wherein: the first API endpoint and the third API endpoint have a same input schema
and the first search integration component has a first output schema and the second search integration component has a second output schema, the first output schema being different than the second output schema
However, Naidu teaches:
wherein: the first API endpoint and the third API endpoint have a same input schema (Naidu – see [54], where the user formulating the query may be provided with a database schema defining a database structure, wherein the tables each correspond to data made available by one of the APIs 212a-c endpoints.)
and the first search integration component has a first output schema and the second search integration component has a second output schema, the first output schema being different than the second output schema (Naidu – the data stored in the endpoint reference 1161, including the automatically derived aliases and retrieved field definitions, may effectively act as a database schema for the cloud-stored data, and therefore can also be used as a reference by a user writing a query.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Copty, Naidu and Jones before them, to modify the system of Copty, Naidu and Jones with the teachings of Naidu, as shown above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to abstract the client from the particular DBMS being used (Naidu - [04]).
Claim 11 corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 4, Copty teaches:
sending, from the computing system [to the first API endpoint, at least a second API call corresponding to] at least a second search query [identified in the judgment list, the judgment list further] including second data indicating a relevancy of at least one file of the test corpus of files to the second search query (Copty – see Col. 6 lines 59-62, where in Fig. 3, step 310, a database query is obtained by a query obtainer. Also see Col. 7, lines 38-43, where in Fig. 3, step 340, the testing module initiates the database query (i.e. sending) against a database using a database management system DBMS. Also see Col. 6 lines 63-67, Col. 7 lines 1-10, where data records (i.e. test corpus of files) are generated based on the database query obtained by the query obtainer in Fig. 3, step 310. A first portion of the more than one data record may be characterized in that it complies with a set of constraints forced by the database query (i.e. indicating relevancy). A second portion of the more than one data record may be characterized in that it complies with a first subset of the set of constraints forced by the database query and does not comply with a second subset. Also see Col. 7 lines 24-37, where in Fig. 3, step 330, a database is updated to include the data records (i.e. test corpus of files) that were generated based on the database query. Examiner interprets that the first and second portion of data records, characterized by compliance with a set of constraints forced by the database query, disclose relevancy of each record to the first search query.)
receiving, by the computing system and from the first search integration component, a [second API response to the second API call, the second API] response identifying one or more files stored by the first system of record (Copty – see Col. 7 lines 40-43, where the result by the DBMS is received by the testing module.)
and determining, by the computing system, a second accuracy [score] for the first search integration component based at least in part the second data and the one or more files identified in the [second API] response (Copty – see Col. 7 lines 44-62, where the results returned by the DBMS are evaluated to determine whether the operation of the DBMS was correct. The data record requires there to be at most a predetermined number of results or an exact number of results (i.e. second accuracy). Subject matter (i.e. second data), the number of returned data records may be inspected to determine whether the DMBS performed as expected.)
Copty does not appear to teach:
to the first API endpoint, at least a second API call corresponding to
identified in the judgment list, the judgment list further
second API response to the second API call, the second API call
accuracy score
second API response
However Naidu teaches:
to the first API endpoint, at least a second API call corresponding to (Naidu – see [48], where the system 100 for retrieving data comprises a parser 110, an API call executor 120, a query engine 130, an interface 150, and may be a cloud-hosted system or distributed system. Also see [51-52], where the parser is configured to receive a query from a user 300 via the interface 150. The interface may be a network interface, such as an API, which is configured to receive a query from a system operated by the user over a suitable network connection.)
second API response to the second API call, the second API call (Naidu – see [61-62], where the API call executor 120 is configured to execute the calls to each of the API endpoints 212 (i.e. second API endpoints) specified in the list and retrieve the results (i.e. first incoming API responses).)
second API response (Naidu – see [61-62], where the API call executor 120 is configured to execute the calls to each of the API endpoints 212 (i.e. second API endpoints) specified in the list and retrieve the results (i.e. second incoming API responses).)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Copty, Naidu and Jones before them, to modify the system of Copty, Naidu and Jones with the teachings of Naidu, as shown above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to abstract the client from the particular DBMS being used (Naidu - [04]).
Copty modified by Naidu does not appear to teach:
identified in the judgment list, the judgment list further
accuracy score
However, Jones teaches:
identified in the judgment list, the judgment list further (Jones – the relevance data store maintains one or more records (i.e. judgement list) that indicate a relevance judgement for a given query-content item pair. For example, a given record in the relevance data store may indicate that the query term “patent” and the content item at the address www.uspto.gov are highly relevant to each other. Accordingly, relevance takes the form of a set of ordinal values that indicate decreasing order of relevance, e.g., 1 = highly relevant, 2 = somewhat relevant, 3 = relevant, 4 = less relevant and 5 = not relevant [0019].)
accuracy score (Jones – the method uses the relevance data obtained on the basis of human judgments in conjunction with relevance judgments derived from clicks (using the modeled relationship between clicks and relevance) to estimate a DCG score (i.e. accuracy score) for one or more search engines, a given search engine which may implement or otherwise apply disparate content item relevance functions [0047].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Copty, Naidu and Jones before them, to modify the system of Copty, Naidu and Jones with the teachings of Jones, as shown above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to predict the relevance of a given content item (Jones - [0003]).
Claims 12 and 18 correspond to claim 4 and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 8, Copty teaches:
determining the first accuracy [score] satisfies an accuracy threshold; (Copty – see Col. 7 lines 44-62 for accuracy measurement, including a predetermined number of results or an exact number of results (i.e. threshold).)
and storing the first search integration component as part of a set of approved search integration components at the computing system based at least in part on the first accuracy [score] satisfying the accuracy threshold (Copty – see Col. 8 lines 25-37, where the database query is performed using a second DBMS. One of the first DBMS and second DBMS is a DBMS being tested and the other is a reliable (i.e. approved) DBMS being used to compare results with the DBMS being tested. It will be noted that the reliable DMBS may be a previous version of the DBMS being tested such as a reliable and stable version. Examiner interprets that previous testing of the previous version of a DBMS determines the reliability of the DBMS based on the DBMS’s accuracy (see Col. 7 lines 44-62 for accuracy measurement, including a threshold predetermined number of results or an exact number of results).)
Copty modified by Naidu does not appear to teach:
accuracy score
accuracy score
However, Jones teaches:
accuracy score (Jones – the method uses the relevance data obtained on the basis of human judgments in conjunction with relevance judgments derived from clicks (using the modeled relationship between clicks and relevance) to estimate a DCG score (i.e. accuracy score) for one or more search engines, a given search engine which may implement or otherwise apply disparate content item relevance functions [0047].)
accuracy score (Jones – the method uses the relevance data obtained on the basis of human judgments in conjunction with relevance judgments derived from clicks (using the modeled relationship between clicks and relevance) to estimate a DCG score (i.e. accuracy score) for one or more search engines, a given search engine which may implement or otherwise apply disparate content item relevance functions [0047].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Copty, Naidu and Jones before them, to modify the system of Copty, Naidu and Jones with the teachings of Jones of accuracy score. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to predict the relevance of a given content item (Jones - [0003]).
Claims 16 and 20 correspond to claim 8 and are rejected accordingly.
Claims 5-7, 13-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copty in view of Naidu in view of Jones further in view of Taylor et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0060325 A1, hereinafter “Taylor”).
Regarding claim 5, Copty modified by Naidu and Jones does not appear to teach:
aggregating, as a global score, the first accuracy score and the second accuracy score; and sending the global score to a computing device associated with the first system of record
However, Taylor teaches:
aggregating, as a global score, the first accuracy score and the second accuracy score; and sending the global score to a computing device associated with the first system of record (Taylor – see [0040], where the search service may match entries in the external context list against associated properties of the items, compute a score for the items based on the matching, and rank results (i.e. aggregating) of the query based on the score for the items. Also see [0066], where only items that have a score over a particular threshold may be provided within the ranked results.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Copty, Naidu, Jones and Taylor before them, to modify the system of Copty, Naidu and Jones with the teachings of Taylor, as shown above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to conduct a search using an external context that is not often available to search systems (Taylor - [0001]).
Claims 13 and 19 correspond to claim 5 and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 6, Copty modified by Naidu and Jonesdoes not appear to teach:
wherein the first search query identified in the judgment list is configured to perform a phrase search
However, Taylor teaches:
wherein the first search query identified in the judgment list is configured to perform a phrase search (Taylor – see [0037-0038], where the user experience 402 may include a search tool bar 404 that enables the user to provide terms for the query using one or more input devices of the computing device. The user may further define the query such that the results comprise items directly related to the user, items closely related to the user and/or any item that contains or is related to the terms of the query, “Project A” (i.e. phrase) through the search tool bar. In response to the user entry of query terms, an external context list (i.e. judgment list) comprising one or more entries may be displayed. Also see [0039], where the relationship between the entry of the external context list and the query terms may be highlighted.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Copty, Naidu, Jones and Taylor before them, to modify the system of Copty, Naidu, Jones and Taylor with the teachings of Taylor of wherein the first search query identified in the judgment list is configured to perform a phrase search. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to conduct a search using an external context that is not often available to search systems (Taylor - [0001]).
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 6 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 7, Copty modified by Naidu and Jones does not appear to teach:
wherein the first search query identified in the judgment list is configured to perform a synonym search
However, Taylor teaches:
wherein the first search query identified in the judgment list is configured to perform a synonym search (Taylor – see [0037-0038], where the user experience 402 may include a search tool bar 404 that enables the user to provide terms for the query using one or more input devices of the computing device. The user may further define the query such that the results comprise items directly related to the user, items closely related to the user and/or any item that contains or is related to the terms (i.e. synonym) of the query, “Project A” through the search tool bar. In response to the user entry of query terms, an external context list (i.e. judgment list) comprising one or more entries may be displayed. Also see [0039], where the relationship between the entry of the external context list and the query terms may be highlighted.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Copty, Naidu and Taylor before them, to modify the system of Copty, Naidu and Jones with the teachings of Taylor of wherein the first search query identified in the judgment list is configured to perform a synonym search. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to conduct a search using an external context that is not often available to search systems (Taylor - [0001]).
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected accordingly.
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 RANJIT P DORAISWAMY whose telephone number is (571)270-5759. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571) 272-4098. 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.
/RANJIT P DORAISWAMY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166