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 .
In response to Applicant’s claims filed on August 07, 2025, claims 1-2, 5-20 are now pending for examination in the application.
Response to Arguments
The 112 rejection under 35 USC 112 set forth in the 05/22/2025 office action is hereby withdrawn.
This office action is in response to amendment filed 08/07/2025. In this action claim(s) Weisman (US Pub. No. 20220245176) and Braud et al. (US Pub. No. 20030074248) and Kwok et al. (US Pub. No. 20080183691) in further view of Abhyankar et al. (US Pub. No. 20200250235). The Abhyankar et al. reference has been added to address the amendment of determining, by the processor, a correlation number between the first result documents and one or more historical search result sets associated with the user profile to adjust one or more of the ranking weights for future search result generation.
In this action claim(s) 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisman (US Pub. No. 20220245176) and Braud et al. (US Pub. No. 20030074248) and Kwok et al. (US Pub. No. 20080183691) in further view of Abhyankar et al. (US Pub. No. 20200250235). The Abhyankar et al. reference has been added to address the amendment of determining, by the processor, a correlation number between the first result documents and one or more historical search result sets associated with the user profile to adjust one or more of the ranking weights for future search result generation.
In this action claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisman (US Pub. No. 20220245176) and Braud et al. (US Pub. No. 20030074248) and Kwok et al. (US Pub. No. 20080183691) in further view of Abhyankar et al. (US Pub. No. 20200250235). The Abhyankar et al. reference has been added to address the amendment of determining, by the processor, a correlation number between the first result documents and one or more historical search result sets associated with the user profile to adjust one or more of the ranking weights for future search result generation.
Applicant’s arguments:
In regards to claim 1 on Page(s) 9, applicant argues “The Applicant respectfully submits that one or more features of amended independent claim 1 cannot be performed or executed by the human mind. The steps recited in the claim are inextricably tied to a machine and require specialized computing infrastructure that enables dynamic, user-context-aware query transformation, selective database scoping, and adaptive ranking of search results in an enterprise environment.”
Examiner’s Reply:
The Generating, selecting, and determining steps are mental process and the other limitations are additional elements.
Examiner’s Reply:
Applicant argues that the amended claims comprises statutory subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a commercial interaction or mental process (eg account materialization in cloud computing)), then it falls within the “Mental process” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
A contextual search does not improve the functioning of a computer.
The examiner notes that the computer as recited in the claims are being used for determining search results for a user based on their role/department in an organization (a computer being used a generic tools). Therefore, the abstract idea recited in the claims is generally linking it to a computer environment, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. With respect to claim 1, 12, 18 There is no support for “historical search result sets associated with the user profile to adjust one or more of the ranking weights for future search result generation ….”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1-2, 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, on Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101 accordance with the "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance" (published on 1/7/2019 in Fed, Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 at pgs. 50-57, hereinafter referred to as the "2019 PEG").
Step 1. in accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted the claim method (claims 1-2, 5-11), method (claim 12-17), and method (claims 18-20) are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG, it is noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea falling within the Mental Processes & Mathematical Concepts enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Examiner is of the position that independent claims 1 is directed towards the Mental Processes & Mathematical Concepts Grouping of Abstract Ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes & Mathematical Concepts:
generating, by a processor, a unique user search profile based on the unique identity associated with the user, wherein the unique user search profile comprises at least department metadata, role metadata, prior search behavior, and document access activity of the user (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating a profile);
selecting, by the processor, one or one or more databases based on the user role_and the department metadata in the unique user search profile in an organization, wherein the selection of one or more databases restricts scope of search results to one or more databases relevant to department of the user (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to selecting a database);
applying, by the processor, the unique user search profile to the first search query to query the one or more databases from a selected plurality of databases to generate a unique user first search query (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating a query);
generating, by the processor, a unique first search result comprising a plurality of first search result documents based on the unique user first search query (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating a search result);
generating, by the processor, ranking rules for the plurality of first search result documents based on the unique user search profile, wherein the ranking rules include a plurality of weights associated with the unique user search profile, and wherein the plurality of weights are dynamically applied based on an interaction of the user with the plurality of first search result documents across one or more departments the organization (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating dynamic rules);
determining, by the processor, a correlation number between the first result documents and one or more historical search result sets associated with the user profile to adjust one or more of the ranking weights for future search result generation (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determine a correlation);
controlling, by the processor, rendering of the unique first search result comprising the plurality of first search result documents via a user interface, wherein the plurality of first search result documents are ranked based on the ranking rules.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 1:
receiving, from a user, a unique identity associated with the user (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to data gathering);
receiving, from the user, a first search query including at least one key term (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to data gathering);
rendering via the user interface the unique first search result to the user (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to rendering search results).
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Independent claim(s) 12 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes & Mathematical Concepts:
determining by a processor, a unique user identity of a user, wherein the unique user identity is associated with one or more users of a system (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining a unique identity);
generating, by a processor, a unique user search profile based on the unique identity associated with the user, wherein the unique user search profile comprises at least department metadata, role metadata, prior search behavior, and document access activity of the user (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating a profile);
generating by the processor, a user search modifier that modifies a search of the user based on one or more user search modifier factors (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating a search modifier);
determining, by the processor, a correlation number between the first search result documents and one or more historical search result sets associated with the user profile to adjust one or more of the ranking weights for future search result generation (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determine a number);
correlating by the processor, one or more activity associated with the search response to the unique user identity of the user based on the rank (The limitation recites a mathematical concept; correlating); and
screening by the processor, the search response such that the plurality of documents associated with a relevant tag are invisible to one or more users based on the one or more user search modifier factors, wherein the one or more user search modifier factors include one or more of:
a department of the user, a user history of the user, a user history of all users in the user’s department (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to screening a search response);
controlling, by the processor, rendering the plurality of first search result documents via a user interface, wherein the plurality of first search result documents are ranked based on the ranking rules (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to control rendering).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 12:
accessing by the processor, at least one database including metadata associated with the unique user identity (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to data accessing);
presenting by the processor, the modified search request including at least one key term to at least one database including a plurality of documents (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to presenting data);
receiving by the processor, a search response based on the presented search request, wherein the search response is ranked based on the modified search, and wherein the ranking is also based on a plurality of weights associated with the unique user search profile, and the plurality of weights are dynamically applied based on an interaction of the user with the plurality of first search result documents across one or more departments within an organization (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to data accessing);
rendering via the user interface the first search result documents to the user (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to rendering search results).
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Independent claim(s) 18 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Processes & Mathematical Concepts:
identifying by a processor, a user based on a user profile (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to identifying a user);
generating, by a processor, a unique user search profile based on the unique identity associated with the user, wherein the unique user search profile comprises at least department metadata, role metadata, prior search behavior, and document access activity of the user (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating a profile);
modifying by the processor, the user’s search query based on the user profile (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to modify a query);
determining, by the processor, a correlation number between the first search result documents and one or more historical search result sets associated with the user profile to adjust one or more of the ranking weights for future search result generation (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determine a number);
correlating by the processor, one or more user activity associated with the search response to a unique user identity of the user based on the rank (The limitation recites a mathematical concept; correlating);
applying by the processor, a plurality of weights associated with the user profile to the search response (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to apply weights);
controlling, by the processor, rendering the plurality of first search result documents via a user interface, wherein the plurality of first search result documents are ranked based on the ranking rules (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to control rendering).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 18:
receiving by the processor, a search query from the user (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to data gathering);
presenting by the processor, the modified search query to a documents storage (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to presenting data
receiving by the processor, a search response from the documents storage, wherein the search response is ranked based on the modified search query, and wherein the ranking is also based on a plurality of weights associated with the unique user search profile, and the plurality of weights are dynamically applied based on a type of an interaction of the user with the plurality of first search result documents across one or more departments within an organization (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to data gathering);
rendering via the user interface the first search result documents to the user (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to rendering search results).
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Therefore, independent claim(s) 1, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim(s) 2 and 13:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the unique identity associated with the user is based at least upon a department of the user (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to receiving data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 5:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the unique user search profile is based on a department of the user and the user profile correlation number quantifies the correlation between the unique first search result to the one or more historical search results (The limitation recites a mathematical concept; quantifying).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 6:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
determining a likelihood a user is to open a particular type of document based on a department of the user (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining a likelihood).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
including the particular type of document in the unique first search result to the user based on the likelihood the user is to open a particular type of document based on the department of the user (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining a likelihood).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 7:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the likelihood the user is to open a particular type of document based on the department of the user is based on a total number of times that users from the department have opened the particular type of document (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining a likelihood).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 8:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the likelihood the user is to open a particular type of document based on the department of the user is based on a total number of times that users from the department have edited the particular type of document (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to determining a likelihood).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 9:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the unique user search profile is based on a user document history (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating a profile).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 10:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the unique user search profile is based on a user document history (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating a profile).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 11:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the unique user search profile is based on preconfigured tags (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating a profile).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 14:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the user search modifier causes search results to be ranked based on one or more metadata tags tagged to data in the plurality of documents (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating a search modifier).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 15:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the modified search is presented to a plurality of databases (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to presenting data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 16:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the plurality of databases are based in a cloud-based infrastructure (recites insignificant extra solution activity that amounts to presenting data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 17:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the user search modifier is based on a user document history (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating a search modifier).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 19:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the modified search query is modified based on a department of the user (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating a search modifier).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 20:
Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG:
wherein the modified search query is modified based on a user document history of the user (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating a search modifier).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no
additional elements to provide practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisman (US Pub. No. 20220245176) and Braud et al. (US Pub. No. 20030074248) and Kwok et al. (US Pub. No. 20080183691) in further view of Abhyankar et al. (US Pub. No. 20200250235).
With respect to claim 1, Weisman teaches a method of generating refined search results comprising:
receiving, from a user, a unique identity associated with the user (Paragraph 163 discloses input may be utilized to determine an identity of the user. The identity information may be used to indicate a persona for the user);
receiving, from the user, a first search query including at least one key term (Paragraph 146 discloses the search query is specified as text. The user may specify words entered in a repository to describe the dataset or the names of fields included within the dataset and/or other metadata stored for a dataset);
applying, by a processor, the unique user search profile to the first search query to query one or more databases from a selected plurality of databases to generate a unique user first search query (Paragraph 26 discloses each of the one or more groups of datasets presented in the user interface has correspondence between a persona associated with a user, who entered the search query via the user interface, and a scope associated with the one or more groups of datasets). Weisman does not disclose receiving, from a user, a unique identity associated with the user.
However, Braud et al. teaches receiving, from a user, a unique identity associated with the user (Paragraph 115 discloses a unique user identification (ID)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Weisman with Braud et al. to include generating a unique first search result comprising a plurality of first search result documents ranked based on the unique identity associated with the user. This would have facilitated improved search results given an individual’s role in an enterprise. See Braud et al. Paragraph(s) 2-15.
Weisman as modified by Braud et al. does not disclose generating a unique first search result comprising a plurality of first search result documents- based on the unique user first search query.
However, Kwok et al. teaches generating, by a processor, a unique first search result comprising a plurality of first search result documents- based on the unique user first search query (Paragraph 27 discloses a knowledge based ranking system 100 for a document ranking method for query results using both the explicit and the extracted implicit metadata and the knowledge of user-document relationship);
generating, by a processor, ranking rules for the plurality of first search result documents based on the unique user search profile, wherein the ranking rules include a plurality of weights associated with the unique user search profile, and wherein the plurality of weights are dynamically applied based on an interaction of the user with the plurality of first search results documents across one or more departments within the organization (Paragraph 19 discloses Knowledge is based on the profiles and preferences of an individual user, explicit metadata and dynamically extracted implicit metadata from business document properties, dynamically built user and document knowledge, and dynamically constructed specific user-document relationship parameters based on relationship rules inputted statically or dynamically altered by a user of an administrator, and static and dynamic ranking rules either build from the retrieved user's information or the user's input and Paragraph 27 discloses weighting factors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Weisman and Braud et al. with Kwok et al. to include generating, by a processor, a unique user search profile based on the unique identity associated with the user, wherein the unique user search profile comprises at least department metadata, role metadata, prior search behavior, and document access activity of the user. This would have facilitated improved search results an individual’s role in an enterprise. See Kwok et al. Paragraph(s) 4-12.
Weisman as modified by Braud et al. and Kwok et al. does not disclose selecting, by the processor, one or one or more databases based on the user role in an organization.
However, Abhyankar et al. teaches generating, by a processor, a unique user search profile based on the unique identity associated with the user, wherein the unique user search profile comprises at least department metadata, role metadata, prior search behavior, and document access activity of the user (Paragraph 80 discloses semantic graph can include (or have associated with it) security and audit information to help secure data assets based on user security access profiles);
selecting, by the processor, one or one or more databases from a plurality of databases based on the user role and the department metadata in the unique user search profile in an organization, wherein the selection of one or more databases restricts scope of search results to one or more databases relevant to department of the user (Paragraph 41 discloses a database 112 that stores data that is used to provide the analytics functions. For example, the database 112 may store documents, data sets (e.g., databases, data cubes, spreadsheets, etc.), templates, and other data used in supporting one or more analytics applications);
determining, by the processor, a correlation number between the first result documents and one or more historical search result sets associated with the user profile to adjust one or more of the ranking weights for future search result generation (Paragraph 44 discloses When a user context is specified, the general weight may be adjusted based on user-specific usage data and weightings);
controlling, by the processor, rendering the plurality of first search result documents via a user interface, wherein the plurality of first search result documents are ranked based on the ranking rules (Paragraph 97 discloses one or more computers provide a response to the request that is determined based on the customized weights (410). For example, the response may include at least one of a search result, a metric, an attribute, an entity name, a data source, a document, a dashboard, or a visualization and Paragraph 98 discloses one or more search results can be selected or ranked based on the customized weights for the connections. For example, the customized weights can be used to set or adjust an information retrieval score for an object. Usage data indicating prior usage of an object by the user or others can increase a relevance score for the object. The score can be based on a customized weight determined by aggregating weights of connections with the object, e.g., connections of user objects with the object indicating levels of use of the object by those users, or connections of objects associated with the user (e.g., objects representing topics, terms, locations, other documents, etc. that are associated with the user));
rendering via the user interface the unique first search result to the user (Paragraph 97 discloses one or more computers provide a response to the request that is determined based on the customized weights (410). For example, the response may include at least one of a search result, a metric, an attribute, an entity name, a data source, a document, a dashboard, or a visualization).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Weisman and Braud et al. and Kwok et al. with Abhyankar et al. to include selecting, by the processor, one or one or more databases based on the user role in an organization. This would have facilitated improved search results given an individual’s role in an enterprise. See Abhyankar et al. Paragraph(s) 3-23.
The Weisman reference as modified by Braud et al. and Kwok et al. and Abhyankar et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 2, Weisman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the unique identity associated with the user is based at least upon a department of the user (Paragraph 101 discloses identities, which may be established by credentials for example, or may be specified based on membership in one or more groups, such as membership in a department or on a particular project team).
The Weisman reference as modified by Braud et al. and Kwok et al. and Abhyankar et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 5, Abhyankar et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the unique user search profile is based on a department of the user and the user profile correlation number quantifies the correlation between the unique first search result to the one or more historical search results (Paragraph 44 discloses When a user context is specified, the general weight may be adjusted based on user-specific usage data and weightings). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 1 provided above, combining the Weisman reference and the Abhyankar et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 5.
The Weisman reference as modified by Braud et al. and Kwok et al. and Abhyankar et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 9, Weisman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the unique user search profile is based on a user document history (Paragraph 29 discloses Personalization is accomplished by associated search history that determines the strength behind search entities such as query, responsive documents, search session, time, advertisement, anchor text and associated domains with localization and device specific information).
The Weisman reference as modified by Braud et al. and Kwok et al. and Abhyankar et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 10, Kwok et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the unique user search profile is configured such that searches related to a quality event are more likely to be displayed to members having the unique user search profile (Paragraph 19 discloses knowledge-based ranking of retrieved business documents among enterprises, their partners and customers in a standalone or Web-based application. Knowledge is based on the profiles and preferences of an individual user, explicit metadata and dynamically extracted implicit metadata from business document properties, dynamically built user and document knowledge, and dynamically constructed specific user-document relationship parameters based on relationship rules inputted statically or dynamically altered by a user of an administrator, and static and dynamic ranking rules either build from the retrieved user's information or the user's input). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 1 provided above, combining the Weisman reference and the Kwok et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 10.
The Weisman reference as modified by Braud et al. and Kwok et al. and Abhyankar et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 11, Weisman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the unique user search profile is based on preconfigured tags (Paragraph 236 discloses establish a relationship between information in fields of a data structure, including through the use of pointers, tags or other mechanisms that establish relationship between data element).
Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisman (US Pub. No. 20220245176) and Kwok et al. (US Pub. No. 20080183691) and Hartlaub (US Pub. No. 20180189282) in further view of Abhyankar et al. (US Pub. No. 20200250235).
With respect to claim 12, Weisman teaches a method includes:
Determining, by a processor, a unique user identity of a user, wherein the unique user identity is associated with one more users of a system (Paragraph 163 discloses input may be utilized to determine an identity of the user. The identity information may be used to indicate a persona for the user);
accessing, by the processor, at least one database including metadata associated with the unique user identity (Paragraph 26 discloses each of the one or more groups of datasets presented in the user interface has correspondence between a persona associated with a user, who entered the search query via the user interface, and a scope associated with the one or more groups of datasets);
generating, by the processor, a user search modifier that modifies a search of the user based on one or more user search modifier factors (Paragraph 26 discloses each of the one or more groups of datasets presented in the user interface has correspondence between a persona associated with a user, who entered the search query via the user interface, and a scope associated with the one or more groups of datasets);
presenting, by the processor, the modified search request including at least one key term to at least one database including a plurality of documents (Paragraph 146 discloses the search query is specified as text. The user may specify words entered in a repository to describe the dataset or the names of fields included within the dataset and/or other metadata stored for a dataset). Weisman does not disclose receiving by the processor, receiving by the processor, a search response based on the presented search request, wherein the search response is ranked based on the modified search, and wherein the ranking is also based on a plurality of weights associated with the unique user search profile, and the plurality of weights are dynamic based on an interaction of the user across an organization.
However, Kwok et al. teaches receiving by the processor, receiving by the processor, a search response based on the presented search request, wherein the search response is ranked based on the modified search, and wherein the ranking is also based on a plurality of weights associated with the unique user search profile, and the plurality of weights are dynamically applied based on an interaction of the user with the plurality of first search result documents across one or more departments within an organization (Paragraph 14 discloses a document ranking system for query results employing user-document relationship parameters with dynamically extracted user and document information for a Web based application according to an embodiment of the present invention and Paragraph 19 discloses Knowledge is based on the profiles and preferences of an individual user, explicit metadata and dynamically extracted implicit metadata from business document properties, dynamically built user and document knowledge, and dynamically constructed specific user-document relationship parameters based on relationship rules inputted statically or dynamically altered by a user of an administrator, and static and dynamic ranking rules either build from the retrieved user's information or the user's input and Paragraph 27 discloses weighting factors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Weisman with Kwok et al. to include receiving by the processor, receiving by the processor, a search response based on the presented search request, wherein the search response is ranked based on the modified search, and wherein the ranking is also based on a plurality of weights associated with the unique user search profile, and the plurality of weights are dynamic based on an interaction of the user across an organization. This would have facilitated improved search results given an individual’s role in an enterprise. See Kwok et al. Paragraph(s) 4-12.
Weisman as modified by Kwok et al. et al. does not disclose screening by the processor, the search response such that the plurality of documents associated with a relevant tag are invisible to one or more users based on the one or more user search modifier factors, wherein the one or more user search modifier factors include one or more of: a department of the user, a user history of the user [[ ;]], a user history of all users in the user’s department.
However, Hartlaub teaches screening by the processor, the search response such that the plurality of documents associated with a relevant tag are invisible to one or more users based on the one or more user search modifier factors, wherein the one or more user search modifier factors include one or more of: a department of the user, a user history of the user [[ ;]], a user history of all users in the user’s department (Paragraph 47 discloses the databases 108-110 and 112A-112N may include, without limitation, learned user profiles for users of the searchable enterprise platform 115, user account credentials, use history information associated with users of the searchable enterprise platform 115 (such as content use times, content consumption indications, topic mixes associated with users of the searchable enterprise platform 115, user biographical information, user role and/or user status information with respect to one or more entities associated with the searchable enterprise platform 115, other user profile information, learned user profile values, profile context weights, digital content items, and/or the like).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Weisman and Kwok et al. with Hartlaub to include screening by the processor, the search response such that the plurality of documents associated with a relevant tag are invisible to one or more users based on the one or more user search modifier factors, wherein the one or more user search modifier factors include one or more of: a department of the user, a user history of the user [[ ;]], a user history of all users in the user’s department. See Hartlaub Paragraph(s) 3-15.
Weisman as modified by Kwok et al. and Hartlaub does not disclose correlating by the processor, one or more activity associated with the search response to the unique user identity of the user based on the rank.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Weisman and Braud et al. with Hartlaub to include generating, by a processor, a unique user search profile based on the unique identity associated with the user, wherein the unique user search profile comprises at least department metadata, role metadata, prior search behavior, and document access activity of the user. This would have facilitated improved search results an individual’s role in an enterprise. See Kwok et al. Paragraph(s) 4-12.
Weisman as modified by Braud et al. and Hartlaub does not disclose generating, by a processor, a unique user search profile based on the unique identity associated with the user, wherein the unique user search profile comprises at least department metadata, role metadata, prior search behavior, and document access activity of the user.
However, Abhyankar et al. teaches generating, by a processor, a unique user search profile based on the unique identity associated with the user, wherein the unique user search profile comprises at least