DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Remarks, filed September 11th, 2025, has been fully considered and entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-11 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 9, and 10 were amended. Claim 6 was cancelled. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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, 2, 4, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2008/0288489 A1) in view of Thuler et al. (US 2014/0040271 A1), further in view of Chowdhury et al. (US 2006/0143159 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a file search system comprising:
a user terminal; and a server comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processer and storing one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the sever to (see Kim, Figure 12, Paragraphs [0027], [0106]-[0111], “a processor for providing a document search service by applying degree of similarity includes a recording medium capable of mechanical reading; and a program code stored in the recording medium and capable of mechanical reading, wherein the program code includes: … A system for providing a document search service by applying degree of similarity 1200 includes a keyword input unit 1202, a database unit 1204, a document search unit 1206 and a similarity evaluation unit 1208.” [A system (i.e., server) uses a processor for providing a document search service that includes a keyword input unit (i.e., user terminal).]);
acquire a search keyword from the user terminal for identifying a particular file, that contains the search keyword, in the memory that stores a plurality of files (see Kim, Figure 12, Paragraphs [0047], [0049], [0108], “When a user of a search service for patent documents inputs a search keyword relating to the required previous patent (step S300), patent documents that have been previously stored in a database are searched by using the input search keyword (step S302).” [A keyword search for patent documents (i.e., particular file) is received from a user .]);
identify the particular file in the memory that contains the search keyword (see Kim, Figure 12, Paragraphs [0047], [0049]-[0050], [0109], “After checking the database of the patent documents for whether patent documents including the search keyword or synonym of the search keyword exist or not (step S304)” [The patent documents (i.e., particular file) that contains the search keyword are identified.]);
calculate, for each of the plurality of files, a score value corresponding to an appearance frequency of the search keyword in each of the plurality of files, including the particular file, and a degree of relatedness representing a relationship between the search keyword and each of the plurality of files including the particular file (see Kim, Figure 9, Paragraphs [0052], [0055], [0096], “The degree of “appearance frequency” indicates a degree as to how many search keywords are found in the searched patent documents. Thus, the degree of similarity between the search keyword and the searched patent documents may be evaluated by measuring the appearance frequency.” [A similarity score (i.e., degree of relatedness) and an appearance frequency (i.e., a score value) is calculated.]);
However, Kim does not explicitly teach:
register a keyword, among a plurality of keywords included in each of the plurality of files stored in the memory, as an important keyword, the important keyword having a number of matches with a previous search keyword, acquired in a past search process, that is equal to or larger than a threshold;
Thuler teaches:
register a keyword, among a plurality of keywords included in each of the plurality of files stored in the memory, as an important keyword, the important keyword having a number of matches with a previous search keyword, acquired in a past search process, that is equal to or larger than a threshold (see Thuler, Paragraphs [0022], [0046]-[0047], “If the number of times that a search term appears in the search history exceeds a threshold value, the search term may be categorized as a generic term, and a URL containing the search term is excluded from registration. Alternatively, if the number of times that the search term appears in the search history does not exceed the threshold value, the search term may be categorized a top term, where the search term is recognized to be associated with a user or an entity and is provided for registration to the user or entity that is recognized to be associated with the search term. … FIG. 3 is an example illustration for organizing search terms based on their respective categorization. As shown in FIG. 3, the search terms are partitioned into four areas.” [A word is partitioned (i.e., registered) based on their respective categorization (i.e., important word) depending if a threshold is or not exceeded.]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Kim (teaching a method for search patent documents by applying degree of similarity) in view of Thuler (teaching categorizing search terms), and arrived at a system that registers important words. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purposes of categorizing search terms (see Thuler, Paragraph [0002]). In addition, both the references (Kim and Thuler) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as information retrieval. The close relation between both the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
The combination of Kim, and Thuler further teaches:
and output a search result to the user terminal, wherein the search result comprises: the degree of relatedness when a difference between a maximum score value and a minimum score value, among score values of the plurality of files, is equal to or larger than a predetermined value, or the important keyword when the difference is less than the predetermined value, wherein: the important keyword is displayed together with the search result, and the important keyword is included in suggestion information prompting a use of the important keyword, as a search keyword, in a subsequent search (see Kim, Figure 9, Paragraphs [0052], [0055], [0096], “After evaluating the degree of similarity, the searched patent documents are sorted and displayed for the user (step S308). … FIG. 9 is a screen view illustrating an arrangement of the searched documents according to a keyword order as a result of a similarity evaluation in a patent document search service.” Also, see Thuler, Paragraphs [0022], [0046]-[0047], [A similarity score (i.e., degree of relatedness) and categorized keywords (i.e., important words) may be displayed.]).
However, the combination of Kim, and Thuler do not explicitly teach:
and output a search result to the user terminal, wherein the search result comprises: the degree of relatedness when a difference between a maximum score value and a minimum score value, among score values of the plurality of files, is equal to or larger than a predetermined value, or the important keyword when the difference is less than the predetermined value, wherein: the important keyword is displayed together with the search result, and the important keyword is included in suggestion information prompting a use of the important keyword, as a search keyword, in a subsequent search.
Chowdhury teaches:
and output a search result to the user terminal, wherein the search result comprises: the degree of relatedness when a difference between a maximum score value and a minimum score value, among score values of the plurality of files, is equal to or larger than a predetermined value, or the important keyword when the difference is less than the predetermined value, wherein: the important keyword is displayed together with the search result, and the important keyword is included in suggestion information prompting a use of the important keyword, as a search keyword, in a subsequent search (see Chowdhury, Paragraphs [0152]-[0157], “Referring to FIG. 17, a process 430 represents one implementation of the operation 430 of FIG. 4, in which search results are filtered based on scores assigned to the search results. The process 430 may be executed by a search interface, such as the search interface 110 of FIG. 1, as part of the process 400 of FIG. 4. … The search interface determines a score differential between the two adjacent search results (1710). The score differential is the difference between the scores assigned to the two adjacent search results. The differential may be determined as an absolute score differential or as a relative score differential. For example, the score differential may be determined as a percentage of a maximum, minimum, or average score of the search results, as a percentage of the larger or the smaller of the scores of the two adjacent search results, as a percentage of a difference between the maximum and the minimum scores, or as a percentage of a difference between the scores of the two adjacent search results. The search interface determines whether the score differential is too large (1715). In one implementation, the score differential may be too large when the score differential exceeds a threshold differential. The threshold differential may be an absolute score differential or a relative score differential, such as a percentage of a maximum, minimum, or average score of the search results, as a percentage of a difference between the maximum and the minimum scores, a percentage of a difference between the scores identified for the two adjacent search results, or as a percentage of a standard deviation of the scores of the search results.” [Search results are filtered based on a difference between a maximum and minimum score value exceeding a threshold. Therefore, the first condition (i.e., the degree of relatedness when a difference between a maximum score value and a minimum score value, among score values of the plurality of files, is equal to or larger than a predetermined value) is satisfied.]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Kim (teaching a method for search patent documents by applying degree of similarity) in view of Thuler (teaching categorizing search terms), further in view of Chowdhury (teaching filtering search results), and arrived at a system that calculates a difference between a maximum and minimum score. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purposes of improving quality (see Chowdhury, Paragraph [0155]). In addition, the references (Kim, Thuler and Chowdhury) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as information retrieval. The close relation between the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Thuler, further in view of Chowdhury teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Kim further teaches:
calculate the score value for each of the plurality of files on a basis of a number of appearances of the search keyword appearing in the document of each of the plurality of files (see Kim, Paragraph [0055], “The degree of “appearance frequency” indicates a degree as to how many search keywords are found in the searched patent documents. Thus, the degree of similarity between the search keyword and the searched patent documents may be evaluated by measuring the appearance frequency.” [The appearance frequency (i.e., score value) is determined based on how many keywords are found in the documents.]).
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Thuler, further in view of Chowdhury teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Kim, and Thuler further teaches:
calculate the score value of each of the plurality of files on a basis of a number of appearances of the search keyword appearing in the document of each of the plurality of files and a number of appearances of the important keyword appearing in the document of each of the plurality of files (see Kim, Paragraph [0055], “The degree of “appearance frequency” indicates a degree as to how many search keywords are found in the searched patent documents. Thus, the degree of similarity between the search keyword and the searched patent documents may be evaluated by measuring the appearance frequency.” Also, see Thuler, Paragraph [0022] [The appearance frequency (i.e., score value) is determined based on how many keywords are found in the documents, which can be calculated for the categorized keywords (i.e., important keyword).]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Thuler, further in view of Chowdhury teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Kim further teaches:
output the search result in a descending order in terms of degree of the relatedness (see Kim, Figure 9, Paragraphs [0096], [0097], “In a case where keywords are registered as K1, K2 and K3 as illustrated in FIG. 9, the searched documents may be arranged in order of high similarity based on an order that each of the keywords appear.” [The search results are displayed in an order of high similarity (i.e., descending order).]).
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Thuler, further in view of Chowdhury teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Kim further teaches:
a score value for each degree of relatedness in the set of degrees of relatedness, such that the score value associated with each degree of relatedness is displayed on the user terminal along with the associated degree of relatedness (see Kim, Figure 9, Paragraph [0096], “FIG. 9 is a screen view illustrating an arrangement of the searched documents according to a keyword order as a result of a similarity evaluation in a patent document search service.” [The search results are displayed along with a similarity (i.e., degree of relatedness) and an appearance frequency (i.e., score value).]).
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Thuler, further in view of Chowdhury teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Thuler, and Chowdhury further teaches:
wherein when the difference is less than the predetermined value, the one or more computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the server to forgo outputting the search result to the user terminal and send a search error message to the user terminal (see Thuler, Paragraph [0045], “Server 108 may provide a notification to the user, to notify the user requirements for obtaining a URL assembled with the user-selected term.” Also, see Chowdhury, Paragraphs [0152]-[0157], “The search interface also may eliminate search results with scores less than or equal to a minimum allowable score (1730).” [A notification may be sent to the user, and the search results may be removed.]).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Kim in view of Thuler, further in view of Chowdhury teaches all of the elements of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-8, and 11 in system form rather than in method, and computer-readable recording medium form. Kim also discloses a method [0017] and computer-readable recording medium [0027]. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1, 2, 4, 7-8, and 11 applies equally as well to those elements of claims 9 and 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments, filed September 11th, 2025, have been fully considered, but moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
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 HUSAM TURKI SAMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-6803. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, Alternate Fridays.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached on (571)-272-4080. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUSAM TURKI SAMARA/Examiner, Art Unit 2161
/APU M MOFIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161