DETAILED ACTION
Summary and Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 7/11/2025.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasudevan et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0282010) in view of Cheong (US Patent 2014/0372447).
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 10, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Examiner suggests moving the limitation starting “pre-constructing” to be the first limitation because the current first limitation, as amended, refers to the graph entity libraries.
Claim 8 recites in the last limitation, “first category and the second contextual meaning of the search keyword”. This seems to have been intended to be “first category and the second category” and the second instance of “second category” in the limitation was intended to be amended to “second contextual meaning of the search keyword,” which would make it consistent with claims 1 and 15.
Claim 10, line 5 “a second set” should be “the second set”.
Claim 15, sixth and sixth limitations, “first set data processing” should be “first set of libraries.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite limitations that are not described in the specification. In particular, these claims recite the following limitations of “the search keyword having a respective contextual meaning in each respective graph entity library”, “the search keyword having a first contextual meaning in the first graph entity library”, “the search keyword having a different contextual meaning in the one or more graph entity libraries,” “the representation of each graph entity library including a representation of the respective contextual meaning of the search keyword,” “the search keyword having a second contextual meaning in the second graph entity library,” and “dynamically displaying, on a second portion of the display, search content related to a combination of the first category and the second category by using the search keyword and the second contextual meaning of the search keyword as a common search condition.”
Applicant cites to paras. 0120-126 of the specification as support for these limitations. However, Examiner’s review of these paragraphs does not describe a “search keyword” having a “contextual meaning” as utilized in the aforementioned limitation. In fact, the words “context,” “contextual,” and “meaning” are not found anywhere in the specification or drawings. Further, the cited paragraphs seem focused on the feature of S104 of Applicant’s Fig. 1, while much of the limitations are occurring during steps S101-103.
In reviewing the specification with regards to S101-103, the specification does not describe the aforementioned limitations and features. At best, the paragraphs describing steps S101-103 simply describes determining a first graph entity library corresponding to a first category to which the search keyword belongs, without going into details as to how a “search keyword” is determined to belong to a category. It goes on to describe determining one or more graph entity libraries that are associated with the first graph entity library based on association relationships and constructing a first set with these associated graph entity libraries and the first graph entity library. Representations of the first set of graph entity libraries are then displayed on a display to the user with the search keyword as the center. However, there is no discussion of the representations of each graph entity including a representation of the respective contextual meaning of the search keyword. The specification states that “each graph entity library included in the first set is displayed, and the association between each graph entity library and the search keyword is displayed.” This is, however, different than displaying a “representation of the respective contextual meaning of the search keyword.”
In regards to “using the search keyword and the second contextual meaning of the search keyword as a common search condition,” recited in the second “dynamically displaying” limitation, the specification describes “if the search keyword is ‘hypertension’, and the user triggers the “symptom” in the first set, the search is triggered by using ‘hypertension symptom’ as a search condition … to meet the search demand of the user based on the search keyword ‘hypertension’ and ‘symptom’.” Spec at para. 0122. The specification does not describe utilizing a “second contextual meaning of the search keyword” with the “search keyword” as a “common search condition” as currently recited.
For at least these reasons, the limitations recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 noted above are not described in the specification. Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 15 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in the first limitation, “… the search keyword having a respective contextual meaning in each respective graph entity library.” Claim 1 also recites in the third limitation “determining a first graph entity library corresponding to a first category to which the search keyword belongs, the search keyword having a first contextual meaning in the first graph entity library.” It is unclear how the determination in the third limitation can be made if the “search keyword” has a “contextual meaning” in all of the graph entity libraries as recited in the first limitation. If this is true, then any of the graph entity libraries would qualify as a “first graph entity library” because the “search keyword” essentially “belongs” to categories that correspond to all of them. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 also recites “the search keyword having a different contextual meaning in the one or more graph entity libraries” in the fourth limitation. It is unclear whether this “different contextual meaning” is the same as the “respective contextual meaning” that a “search keyword” already has with each respective graph entity library. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 also recites “the search keyword having a second contextual meaning in the second graph entity library” in the seventh limitation and “the second contextual meaning of the search keyword” in the eighth limitation. It is unclear whether this “second contextual meaning” is different from the “respective contextual meaning” and/or the “different contextual meaning” recited in earlier limitations. Clarification is required.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
Note on Prior Art Rejections
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasudevan et al. (US Patent Pub 2009/0282010) (Vasudevan), in view of Cheong (US Patent 2014/0372447).
In regards to claim 1, Vasudevan discloses a method for dynamically displaying search engine results, performed by at least one processor and comprising:
a. determining a search keyword according to a search statement input by a user, the search keyword having a respective contextual meaning in each respective graph entity library (Vasudevan at paras. 0026, 0086)1;
b. pre-constructing graph entity libraries of a plurality of categories (Vasudevan at paras. 0017, 0022, 0031-36)2
c. determining a first graph entity library corresponding to a first category to which the search keyword belongs, the search keyword having a first contextual meaning in the first graph entity library (Vasudevan at paras. 0018, 0026)3;
d. determining, according to an association relationship between one or more pre-constructed graph entity libraries, one or more graph entity libraries that are associated with the first graph entity library, the search keyword having a different contextual meaning in the one or more graph entity libraries (Vasudevan at paras. 0050-51)4;
e. constructing a first set of libraries, the first set of libraries comprising the first graph entity library and one or more graph entity libraries (Vasudevan at paras. 0097, 0100)5,
Vasudevan does not expressly disclose dynamically displaying, on a first portion of a display, a representation of each graph entity library comprised in the first set of libraries by using the search keyword as a center, the representation of each graph entity library including a representation of the respective contextual meaning of the search keyword, obtaining a selection operation from the user selecting a second graph entity library representation, the second graph entity library representation representing a second graph entity library comprised in the first set of libraries, the second graph entity library corresponding to a second category that is associated with the search keyword the user is seeking further information on, and the search keyword having a second contextual meaning in the second graph entity, and dynamically displaying, on a second portion of the display, search content related to a combination of the first category and the second category by using the search keyword and the second contextual meaning of the search keyword as a common search condition, wherein the search content comprises one or more web pages associated with the common search condition, and wherein the search content is not a first graph entity representation and not the second graph entity representation.
Cheong discloses a system and method for building and managing a knowledge index system with the ability to search it. Cheong at paras. 0012, 0021. Cheong provides the knowledge index system includes nodes and edges, where nodes represent a subject word or core word (i.e., graph entity library) about a knowledge of a particular field (i.e., category). These nodes can be connected with edges, which represent logical relationships or an association relationship between the nodes. Cheong at paras. 0040, 0043-46. Upon searching the knowledge index (Cheong at para. 0054), the system returns the node or nodes that include or is related to the search word (i.e., search keyword) depending on the search range input by the user. Cheong at paras. 0069-71. The graphical user interface displays the results of the user search by displaying the node corresponding to the core word (i.e., search keyword) as the center and associated nodes (i.e., displaying each graph entity library comprised in the first set) arranged around it. Cheong at Figs. 5-6; para. 0074. These associated nodes are represented by nodes (i.e., graph entity library representation) and if necessary, a category/contextual meaning is also displayed when nodes are combined (i.e., representation of the respective contextual meaning of the search keyword). The system provides, when a user selects a node (i.e., obtaining a selection operation from the user selecting a second graph entity library representation …), its data and relationships with other nodes are displayed (i.e., dynamically displaying, on a second portion of the display, search content related to a combination of the first category and the second category). Cheong at Figs. 5-6; paras. 0045, 0067-68, 0073-75. Since the nodes are related to each other, the content that is shown is related to both the first category to which a first node corresponds, the core word (i.e., search keyword), and a second category to which a second related node corresponds (i.e., using the search keyword and the second contextual meaning of the search keywords as a common search condition). The data is displayed in a lower portion of the interface (i.e., second portion of the display) and can comprise websites (i.e., one or more web pages). Cheong at Fig. 3; para. 0079. Thus, the data displayed at the lower part of the interface (i.e., search content) is not a first graph entity library representation and is also not a second graph entity library representation.
Vasudevan and Cheong are analogous art because they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of query/search systems using relationships between nodes.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Vasudevan by adding the features of dynamically displaying, on a first portion of a display, a representation of each graph entity library comprised in the first set of libraries by using the search keyword as a center, the representation of each graph entity library including a representation of the respective contextual meaning of the search keyword, obtaining a selection operation from the user selecting a second graph entity library representation, the second graph entity library representation representing a second graph entity library comprised in the first set of libraries, the second graph entity library corresponding to a second category that is associated with the search keyword the user is seeking further information on, and the search keyword having a second contextual meaning in the second graph entity, and dynamically displaying, on a second portion of the display, search content related to a combination of the first category and the second category by using the search keyword and the second contextual meaning of the search keyword as a common search condition, wherein the search content comprises one or more web pages associated with the common search condition, and wherein the search content is not a first graph entity representation and not the second graph entity representation, as disclosed by Cheong.
The motivation for doing so would have been because this type of display and additional navigational features allows a user to find a desired node (i.e., entity graph library) even when the user does not know the proper search word. Cheong at para. 0074.
In regards to claim 3, Vasudevan in view of Cheong discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
a. prior to displaying the search content, constructing a second set, the second set comprising at least one graph entity library which has an association relationship with the second graph entity library (Vasudevan at paras. 0038-40, 0050-51, 0054)6; and
b. displaying the at least one graph entity library comprised in the second set by using the second graph entity library as the center. Cheong at Figs. 5-6; paras. 0073-757.
In regards to claim 4, Vasudevan in view of Cheong discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the second set comprises a third graph entity library (Vasudevan at paras. 0038-40, 0050-51, 0054)8, and the method further comprises: displaying the search content related to the search keyword, the second graph entity library, and the third graph entity library, in response to a second selection operation triggered by the user for the first graph entity library. Cheong at Figs. 5-6; paras. 0045, 0067-68, 0073-759.
In regards to claim 5, Vasudevan in view of Cheong discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the search statement comprises a first keyword (Vasudevan at para. 008610; Cheong at para. 005411) , and the determining the search keyword comprises:
a. querying each of the pre-constructed graph entity libraries of the plurality of categories (Vasudevan at paras. ; Cheong at paras. 0054, 0069)12; and
b. determining, in a case that a graph entity that hits the first keyword exists in a respective graph entity library, a normalized entity name corresponding to the graph entity that hits the first keyword as the search keyword. Cheong at paras. 0041, 0044-45, 0069.13
In regards to claim 6, Vasudevan in view of Cheong discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
a. obtaining a historical search statement, and determining a search keyword of the historical search statement and a search demand of the historical search statement (Vasudevan at paras. 0017, 0038-39)14;
b. determining a first history category to which the search keyword of the historical search statement belongs and a second history category to which the search demand of the historical search statement belongs (Vasudevan at paras. 0017, 0038-40, 0044-45)15; and
c. establishing the association relationship between a graph entity library of the first category and a graph entity library of the second history category. Vasudevan at paras. 0050-51.16
In regards to claim 7, Vasudevan in view of Cheong discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
a. obtaining a historical search statement, and determining a first history category to which a search keyword of the historical search statement belongs (Vasudevan at paras. 0017, 0038-39)17;
b. obtaining a second history category of a content viewed by a network user for the historical search statement (Vasudevan at paras. 0017, 0038-40, 0044-45)18; and
c. establishing the association relationship between a graph entity library of the first history category and a graph entity library of the second history category. Vasudevan at paras. 0050-51.19
In regards to claim 8, Vasudevan discloses a data processing apparatus, comprising:
a. at least one memory configured to store program code (Vasudevan at para. 0039); and
b. at least one processor configured to read the program code and operate as instructed by the program code (Vasudevan at para. 0039), the program code comprising:
i. pre-constructing code configured to cause the at least one processor to pre-construct the graph entity libraries of a plurality of categories (Vasudevan at paras. 0017, 0022, 0031-36)20;
ii. first determining code, configured to cause the at least one processor to determine a search keyword according to a search statement input by a user, the search keyword having a respective contextual meaning in each respective graph entity library (Vasudevan at paras. 0026, 0086)21;
ii. second determining code, configured to cause the at least one processor to determine a first graph entity library corresponding to a category to which the search keyword belongs, the search keyword having a first contextual meaning in the first graph entity library (Vasudevan at paras. 0018, 0026)22;
iii. first construction code, configured to cause the at least one processor to determine, according to an association relationship between graph entity libraries of each category, a category of a graph entity library associated with the first graph entity library, the search keyword having a different contextual meaning in the one or more graph entity libraries (Vasudevan at paras. 0050-51)23;
iv. second construction code, configured to cause the at least one processor to construct a first set of libraries comprising the first graph entity library and the one or more graph entity libraries (Vasudevan at paras. 0097, 0100)24;
Vasudevan does not expressly disclose first display code, configured to cause the at least one processor to dynamically display, on a first portion of a display, a representation of each graph entity library comprised in the first set of libraries by using the search keywords as a center, the representation of each graph entity library including a representation of the respective contextual meaning of the search keyword, obtaining code, configured to cause the at least one processor to obtain a selection operation form the user selecting a second graph entity library representation, the second graph entity library representation representing a second graph entity library comprised in the first set of libraries, the second graph entity library corresponding to a second category that is associated with the search keyword the user is seeking further information on, and the search keyword having a second contextual meaning in the second graph entity library, and second display code, configured to cause the at least one processor to display, on a second portion of the display, search content related to a combination of the first category and the second category by using the search keyword and the second contextual meaning of the search keyword as a common search condition, wherein the search content comprises one or more web pages associated with the common search condition, and wherein the search content is not a first graph entity representation and not the second graph entity representation.
Cheong discloses a system and method for building and managing a knowledge index system with the ability to search it. Cheong at paras. 0012, 0021. Cheong provides the knowledge index system includes nodes and edges, where nodes represent a subject word or core word (i.e., graph entity library) about a knowledge of a particular field (i.e., category). These nodes can be connected with edges, which represent logical relationships or an association relationship between the nodes. Cheong at paras. 0040, 0043-46. Upon searching the knowledge index (Cheong at para. 0054), the system returns the node or nodes that include or is related to the search word (i.e., search keyword) depending on the search range input by the user. Cheong at paras. 0069-71. The graphical user interface displays the results of the user search by displaying the node corresponding to the core word (i.e., search keyword) as the center and associated nodes (i.e., displaying each graph entity library comprised in the first set) arranged around it. Cheong at Figs. 5-6; para. 0074. The system provides, when a user selects a node (i.e., obtaining a selection operation from the user selecting a second graph entity library representation …), its data and relationships with other nodes are displayed (i.e., dynamically displaying, on a second portion of the display, search content related to a combination of the first category and the second category). Cheong at Figs. 5-6; paras. 0045, 0067-68, 0073-75. Since the nodes are related to each other, the content that is shown is related to both the first category to which a first node corresponds, the core word (i.e., search keyword), and a second category to which a second related node corresponds. The data is displayed in a lower portion of the interface (i.e., second portion of the display) and can comprise websites (i.e., one or more web pages). Cheong at Fig. 3; para. 0079. Thus, the data displayed at the lower part of the interface (i.e., search content) is not a first graph entity library representation and is also not a second graph entity library representation.
Vasudevan and Cheong are analogous art because they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of query/search systems using relationships between nodes.
At the time before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Vasudevan by adding the features of first display code, configured to cause the at least one processor to dynamically display, on a first portion of a display, a representation of each graph entity library comprised in the first set of libraries by using the search keywords as a center, the representation of each graph entity library including a representation of the respective contextual meaning of the search keyword, obtaining code, configured to cause the at least one processor to obtain a selection operation form the user selecting a second graph entity library representation, the second graph entity library representation representing a second graph entity library comprised in the first set of libraries, the second graph entity library corresponding to a second category that is associated with the search keyword the user is seeking further information on, and the search keyword having a second contextual meaning in the second graph entity library, and second display code, configured to cause the at least one processor to display, on a second portion of the display, search content related to a combination of the first category and the second category by using the search keyword and the second contextual meaning of the search keyword as a common search condition, wherein the search content comprises one or more web pages associated with the common search condition, and wherein the search content is not a first graph entity representation and not the second graph entity representation, as disclosed by Cheong.
The motivation for doing so would have been because this type of display and additional navigational features allows a user to find a desired node (i.e., entity graph library) even when the user does not know the proper search word. Cheong at para. 0074.
Claims 10-14 are essentially the same as claims 3-7, respectively, in the form of an apparatus. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 15 and 17-20 are essentially the same as claims 1 and 3-6, respectively, in the form of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program (Vasudevan at para. 0097). Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Amendment
Objection to claims 1, 8, and 15 for Minor Informalities
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 8, and 15 to address the minor informalities is acknowledged. However, Applicant’s amendments create new minor informalities in claims 1, 8, and 15, as set forth above. Consequently, the objection to claims 1, 8, and 15 is maintained.
Rejection of Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C 112(b)
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 is acknowledged. However, Applicant’s amendment raise new issues as set forth in the rejection above. Consequently, the rejection to claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained under the new grounds of rejection set forth above, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the rejections to claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant alleges Vasudevan in view of Cheong fails to disclose (1) “the search keyword having a respective contextual meaning in each respective graph entity library,” and (2) “the search keyword has different contextual meanings,” and (3) “the search results are based on a specific contextual meaning of the search keyword among a plurality of meanings of the search keyword.” Remarks at 14-15. Applicant argues Vasudevan merely discloses hierarchies but does not disclose a search keyword having a different contextual meaning for each attribute and Cheong merely discloses nodes and edges that make up an index system display but does not disclose the nodes indicate a respective contextual meaning of a specific search keyword. Remarks at 15. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner is required to give claim limitations their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. However, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP 2111.
Applicant’s arguments rely on “contextual meaning” of a search keyword. As discussed in the 112(a) rejection above, the specification makes no mention of or description of “contextual meaning” of a search keyword. As explained in the rejection above, the specification describes determining a first graph entity library that corresponds to a category to which the search keyword belongs. At best, “contextual meaning” may correspond to “category” to which a search keyword belongs. Given this interpretation, each limitation is addressed in turn below.
In regards to limitation (1), the limitation is interpreted to mean the search keyword belongs to one or more categories, which correspond to one or more graph entity libraries. Vasudevan discloses a query (i.e., search keyword) can map to multiple categories and entities. Vasudevan at para. 0093. In other words, a search keyword belongs to one or more categories, which correspond to one or more graph entity libraries.
In regards to limitation (2), as discussed above, Vasudevan discloses a query can map (i.e., belong) to multiple categories. In other words, the search keyword can have different contextual meanings and reference different entities in different categories. For example, Vasudevan discloses a query “Michael Jordan” can map to “sports star” and “movie star” categories. Vasudevan at para. 0094. Thus, a “search keyword” has a different “contextual meaning”.
In regards to limitation (3), Cheong discloses a graphical user interface that displays search results by displaying the node corresponding to the core word (i.e., search keyword) in the center and associated nodes arranged around it (i.e., displaying each graph entity library comprised in the first set). Cheong at Figs. 5-6; para. 0074. This display of nodes is a result of a search and the nodes can be navigated, which rearranges the nodes on the display as the user navigates. In this way, the display of nodes is “dynamically displayed”. Cheong at paras. 0074. Cheong discloses allowing the user to select nodes that are displayed (i.e., second graph entity library) through navigating the displayed nodes to view data contained within the nodes (i.e., search content). These nodes are also related/associated with the original node located at the center. Cheong at paras. 0069-74. In this way, Cheong discloses obtaining a selection that triggers a second graph entity library. Vasudevan discloses that nodes in the taxonomy correspond to categories. Vasudevan at para. 0022. Thus, a “second graph entity library” would correspond to a second category and it is associated with the selection because the user selected the “second graph entity library” and it is also associated with the “search keyword” because it is related/associated with the original (center) node, which means nodes corresponding to a second category have results based on that second category and the original search keyword (i.e., using the search keyword and second contextual meaning (i.e., the second category) as a common search condition). The display of the “search content” in a second portion is also disclosed by Cheong. Cheong discloses data related to one or more nodes are displayed at the lower portion of the interface (i.e., second portion of the display). These data are the results of a user’s search of the knowledge graph, which are not the nodes (i.e., first graph entity library or second graph entity library representations). Cheong at Fig. 3; para. 0079.
Applicant does not present additional arguments with regards to the remaining limitations. Therefore, Examiner asserts Vasudevan in view of Cheong discloses all the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons explained above. In regards to the remaining claims, Applicant refers to the arguments presented in regards to claim 1, which are addressed above. Consequently, the rejection to claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Additional Prior Art
Additional relevant prior art are listed on the attached PTO-892 form. Some examples are:
Hentschel et al. (US Patent Pub 2016/0357870) discloses a system and method for entity classification and relationship identification.
Potter et al. (US Patent Pub 2014/0074888) discloses a system and method for searching using visual queries.
Hu et al. (US Patent Pub 2017/0249399) discloses a system and method for displaying recommendations in a result using a navigable visual node graph.
Arunachalam et al. (US Patent Pub 2014/0122464) discloses a system and method for graphical user interface keyword search with an interactive node graph.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Michael Le whose telephone number is 571-272-7970 and fax number is 571-273-7970. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 AM – 6 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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL LE/Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 A query is received (i.e., search statement input by a user) and it’s processed to identify entities and attributes (i.e., determining a search keyword) in the query
2 The taxonomies (i.e., categories) are created and the system fetches and aggregates data based on the taxonomies, merging information where necessary (i.e., pre-constructing the graph entity libraries …).
3 The query is processed into a template and based on the template, determines a category for the query. Then, based on the category, the system retrieves entities (i.e., first graph entity library) that answers the query and is in the identified category (i.e., corresponding to a category to which the search keyword belongs).
4 Based on alias mapping (i.e., according to an association relationship), the system can determine other entity aliases (i.e., a graph entity library associated with the first graph entity library).
5 Identified entity (i.e., at least one graph entity) is retrieved for returning to the user (i.e., constructing a first set … comprising at least one graph entity library).
6 Using learned relationships and mapping, a category of the related entity (i.e., second graph entity library) can be determined and other entities related to it can be determined (i.e., second set comprising at least one graph entity which has an association relationship with the second graph entity library). These relationships are determined in response to a received search query. Therefore, it is interpreted as being performed “prior to displaying the search content”.
7 As the user navigates the graph is rearranged so that the selected node is at the center (i.e., using the second graph entity library as a center).
8 Using learned relationships and mapping, a category of the related entity (i.e., second graph entity library) can be determined and other entities related to it can be determined (i.e., third graph entity library).
9 User selects a node (i.e., in response to a selection operation triggered by the user …), its data and relationships with other nodes are displayed (i.e., search content related to the search keyword, second graph entity library, and third graph entity library).
10 The query is parsed to identify an entity (i.e., first keyword).
11 The search input command includes a knowledge search word (i.e., first keyword).
12 The nodes (i.e., graph entity library) are searched.
13 Search word from the user input search (i.e., first keyword) is used to search the nodes (i.e., querying the graph entity library …) and matches the node that has the same search word (i.e., hits the first keyword as the search keyword).
14 Search logs (i.e., historical search statement) are used to determine relationships based on what the entities or attribute the user has searched (i.e., search keyword). User click through information (i.e., search demand) for those historical queries is also analyzed to determine what the search intent of the user was.
15 Search logs (i.e., historical search statement) are used to determine additional categories (i.e., determining a first category) that the search belongs to. Click through information (i.e., search demand) can also be used to determine more categories (i.e., a second history category corresponding to the search demand). Aliases can also be learned (i.e., additional categories such as a first and/or second category).
16 Relationships are established between aliases and their categories (i.e., between the graph entity library of the first category and the graph entity library of the second category).
17 Search logs (i.e., historical search statement) are used to determine additional categories (i.e., determining a first category) that the search belongs to.
18 Search logs (i.e., historical search statement) can be looked at to analyze click through information (i.e., content viewed by a user for the historical search statement), which can also be used to determine more categories (i.e., a second category). Aliases can also be learned (i.e., additional categories such as a first and/or second category).
19 Relationships are established between aliases and their categories (i.e., between the graph entity library of the first category and the graph entity library of the second category).
20 The taxonomies (i.e., categories) are created and the system fetches and aggregates data based on the taxonomies, merging information where necessary (i.e., pre-constructing the graph entity libraries …).
21 A query is received (i.e., search statement input by a user) and it’s processed to identify entities and attributes (i.e., determining a search keyword) in the query
22 The query is processed into a template and based on the template, determines a category for the query. Then, based on the category, the system retrieves entities (i.e., first graph entity library) that answers the query and is in the identified category (i.e., corresponding to a category to which the search keyword belongs).
23 Based on alias mapping (i.e., according to an association relationship), the system can determine other entity aliases (i.e., a graph entity library associated with the first graph entity library).
24 Identified entity (i.e., at least one graph entity) is retrieved for returning to the user (i.e., constructing a first set … comprising at least one graph entity library).
Prosecution Insights