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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendments, arguments and remarks, filed on 11/18/2025, in which claim(s) 1-20 is/are presented for further examination.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 has/have been amended.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment(s) to claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 has/have been accepted.
The examiner thanks applicant’s representative for pointing out where s/he believes there is support for the amendment(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20, filed on 11/18/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20, under 35 U.S.C. 103, see the middle of page 7 to page 9 of applicant’s remarks, filed on 11/18/2025, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 8, “user enters the query” should be corrected to “user entering the query”;
in line 9, “wherein the search element” should be corrected to “wherein the interactive search element”;
in line 11, “the comparison element” should be corrected to “the interactive comparison element”;
in lines 18-19, “the search element and the comparison element” should be corrected to “the interactive search element and the interactive comparison element”;
in line 21, “the search element or activates the comparison element” should be corrected to “the interactive search element or activates the interactive comparison element”;
in lines 22-23, “after the search element” should be corrected to “after the interactive search element”; and
in line 24, “after the comparison element” should be corrected to “after the interactive comparison element”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, “to that a query is entered” should be corrected to “to a query that is entered”;
in line 7, “the comparison element” should be corrected to “the interactive comparison element”; and
in line 16, “the comparison element” should be corrected to “the interactive comparison element”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirovski et al., US 2008/0091546 A1 (hereinafter “Kirovski”) in view of Cheng et al., US 10,387,568 B1 (hereinafter “Cheng”) in further view of Kuffner et al., US 2014/0028799 A1 (hereinafter “Kuffner”).
Claim 1
Kirovski discloses a computer implemented method performed for presenting search information and comparison information at an electronic device (Kirovski, [0070], see one or more computers), the electronic device having an interface (See Kirovski, [0053] below) and stored executable instructions (Kirovski, [0070], see computer-executable instructions), comprising:
making an interactive comparison element visible and displayed with the query input space in response to the user enters the query at least partially in the query input space wherein the search element provides a search option for obtaining a search result which is based on the query (See Kirovski [0053] above, as described previously, “… the comparison component 106 can receive the list 408 of comparable items and generate a pop-up (or similar) notification 410. If the comparison component 106 receives an input (e.g., from an input device represented by cursor 502) indicating a click on the notification 410, then the browser component 102 can transition 504 to a different configuration wherein the list 408 can be provided in a display 412 [i.e., “making an interactive comparison element visible and displayed with the query input space … wherein the search element provides a search option for obtaining a search result which is based on the query”].”), the search element and the comparison element are shown together in the interface (Kirovski, [0068], see “Turning now to FIG. 9, an exemplary flow chart of procedures defining a method 900 for facilitating comparison shopping in a non-invasive way is illustrated. Generally, at 902, a non-invasive notification can be provided for indicating that a list of comparable items is available for display. … At 904, the list of comparable items can be displayed in a non-invasive manner. For example, the non-invasive display can occur immediately upon a determination that a purchase page (or transaction page) has been detected, such as described in connection with act 702 from FIG. 7, or upon clicking upon the notification detailed at act 902. The list and/or display can be a pop-up overlay configurable to be always on top [i.e., “search element and the comparison element are shown together in the interface”], populate a frame, a tab, or some other mechanism. It is to be appreciated that the list can provide hyperlinks to other purchase pages such as those other purchase pages that offer an item substantially similar to the described item [i.e., “comparison result which is based on an object obtained from the query and one or more comparators comparable to the object”], but at a better price, with more features, etc.”);
Kirovski does not appear to explicitly disclose presenting simultaneously in the interface a query input space for a user to enter a query, an interactive search element on a first page;
the comparison element provides a comparison option for a comparison, the comparison is based on the query provided by the user in the query input space, the comparison is further obtaining a comparison result which is based on an object obtained from the query, the object and one or more comparators are compared to each other in the comparison, the one or more comparators are obtained based on the query and comparable to the object, the comparison further involves a comparison factor, the object and the one or more comparators are compared under the comparison factor,
sending the query to a service facility after the user enters the query and activates the search element or activates the comparison element;
receiving from the service facility the search result after the search element is activated or receiving from the service facility the comparison result after the comparison element is activated; and
presenting in the interface the search result or the comparison result after receiving the search result or the comparison result, the comparison result comprising a plurality of concise summaries of the comparison based on the object, the one or more comparators, and the comparison factor.
Cheng discloses presenting simultaneously in the interface a query input space for a user to enter a query, an interactive search element on a first page (Cheng, Fig. 6A
PNG
media_image1.png
479
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See text field 604 [i.e., “query input space for a user to enter a query” and the “Refine by” options 606 [i.e., “interactive search elements”] and where they are all on the same page [i.e., “on a first page”]);
the comparison element provides a comparison option for a comparison, the comparison is based on the query provided by the user in the query input space (See Cheng, Fig. 6A reproduced above, see results presented are based on the search for “tablet” and see the check boxes for the brand, customer reviews and price [i.e., “comparison elements”]), the comparison is further obtaining a comparison result which is based on an object obtained from the query (See Cheng, Fig. 6A reproduced above, see results presented are based on the search for “tablet” [i.e., “an object obtained from the query”]), the object and one or more comparators are compared to each other in the comparison, the one or more comparators are obtained based on the query and comparable to the object, the comparison further involves a comparison factor, the object and the one or more comparators are compared under the comparison factor (See Cheng, Fig. 6A reproduced above, see the tablets returned int eh search results are compared against one another based on one or more of “brand” (i.e., “Samsung”, “Amazon”, “Dragon” and/or “Touch Asus”), “customer reviews” (i.e., “good for kids”, “good sound quality” and/or “nice display”) and/or “price” (i.e., “under $50”, “$50-$100”, “$100-“$200”, “$200-$500” and/or “$500 & above”), which are the “one ore more comparators” and “comparison factor”).
Kirovski and Cheng are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor such as database searches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Kirovski and Cheng before him/her, to modify the searching of Kirovski to include the comparison searching of Cheng because it would allow the refinement of results.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow a user to filter the search results using the keywords or be provided to a user as suggested search terms, see Cheng, Col. 3, lines 18-31.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cheng with Kirovski to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
The combination of Kirovski and Cheng does not explicitly disclose sending the query to a service facility after the user enters the query and activates the search element or activates the comparison element;
receiving from the service facility the search result after the search element is activated or receiving from the service facility the comparison result after the comparison element is activated; and
presenting in the interface the search result or the comparison result after receiving the search result or the comparison result, the comparison result comprising a plurality of concise summaries of the comparison based on the object, the one or more comparators, and the comparison factor.
Kuffner discloses sending the query to a service facility after the user enters the query and activates the search element or activates the comparison element (Kuffner [0024], see “… In an example embodiment, a server may receive a search query that includes a 3D model of a target object (e.g., a search query from a mobile device). ... The server may generate a search query result based on the first comparison. The search query result may include information regarding the target object, information regarding one or more objects similar to the target object, and/or a suggestion to obtain further images of the target object. The server may transmit the search query result (e.g., to a mobile device).”);
receiving from the service facility the search result after the search element is activated or receiving from the service facility the comparison result after the comparison element is activated (Kuffner [0040], see “… For example, upon receiving a 3D model from input source 102 in the form of a search query, the 3D model may be compared to the shape-search database 106 in order to obtain information to generate a search query result. The search query result may include information such as objects in the shape-search database 106 that are similar in any combination of shape, texture, color, size, bound volume, luminance, reflectance, and/or any other indexed object attribute [i.e., “comparison element(s)”].”); and
presenting in the interface the search result or the comparison result after receiving the search result or the comparison result, the comparison result comprising a plurality of concise summaries of the comparison based on the object, the one or more comparators, and the comparison factor (Kuffner [0043], see “… Methods may optionally include transmitting/receiving a search query that includes the 3D model, comparing the 3D model to a shape-search database, generating a search query result based on the comparison, and transmitting/receiving the search query result as described above and as illustrated in FIG. 1A, and elsewhere within the present disclosure;” and Kuffner, [0086], see setting the correct exposure, setting the number of images and setting the file format, which discloses the ability to “have a same presentation format”).
Kirovski, Cheng and Kuffner are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor such as database searches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Kirovski, Cheng and Kuffner before him/her, to modify the comparison searching of the combination of Kirovski and Cheng to include the comparative object searching of Kuffner because it would improve the accuracy of searches.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide enhanced visual presentation of online search results, see Kuffner, [0023]-[0024] and [0040]-[0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kuffner with the combination of Kirovski and Cheng to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Kirovski, Cheng and Kuffner discloses further including presenting the one or more comparators (Kuffner [0040], see “… For example, upon receiving a 3D model from input source 102 in the form of a search query, the 3D model may be compared to the shape-search database 106 in order to obtain information to generate a search query result. The search query result may include information such as objects in the shape-search database 106 that are similar in any combination of shape, texture, color, size, bound volume, luminance, reflectance, and/or any other indexed object attribute [i.e., “one or more comparators”].”).
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Kirovski, Cheng and Kuffner discloses further including presenting an additional element for an image search or a video search in the interface (Kuffner [0024], see “… In an example embodiment, a server may receive a search query that includes a 3D model [i.e., “image”] of a target object (e.g., a search query from a mobile device).”).
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Kirovski, Cheng and Kuffner discloses wherein the comparison factor includes a pricing factor (Kirovski, [0009], see “… Accordingly, the comparison shopping server can return to the comparison component a list of comparative items, each of which is equivalent or substantially similar to the item on the purchase page. The list can include the comparative items at comparative prices, each of which can be anchor text for a hyperlink to the corresponding other purchase page that offers the item at the indicated price. Generally, the list will include N “best” comparative items, where N is a positive integer and “best” is based upon various criteria, usually the lowest price, most features, etc.”).
Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Kirovski, Cheng and Kuffner discloses wherein the plurality of concise summaries have a same presentation format (Kuffner, [0086], see “… In response to setting the correct exposure, the image sensor 220 may be controlled by the controller 212 to capture a plurality of images of the target object. The raw data from the image sensor 220 may be transmitted to the 2D image processor 218 in order to convert the raw image file to a compressed image format, such as the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) standard file format. The images may be transmitted to the 3D model builder 224 in order to determine a 3D model of the target object.”).
Claims 6 and 11
With respect to claims 6 and 11, the combination of Kirovski, Cheng and Kuffner discloses wherein the plurality of concise summaries each contain no more than a few items besides expression of summary identity, the items including a number, a word, a letter, a character, a sign, a symbol, an image, or a video clip (Kuffner, [0040], see “… The search query result may include information such as objects in the shape-search database 106 that are similar in any combination of shape, texture, color, size, bound volume, luminance, reflectance, and/or any other indexed object attribute.”).
Claim 7
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Kirovski, Cheng and Kuffner discloses wherein the comparison factor includes a rating factor and/or a review quantity factor (Kirovski, [0009], see “… Accordingly, the comparison shopping server can return to the comparison component a list of comparative items, each of which is equivalent or substantially similar to the item on the purchase page. The list can include the comparative items at comparative prices, each of which can be anchor text for a hyperlink to the corresponding other purchase page that offers the item at the indicated price. Generally, the list will include N “best” comparative items, where N is a positive integer and “best” is based upon various criteria, usually the lowest price, most features, etc.”).
Claim 8
Kirovski discloses a computer implemented method performed for presenting comparison information at an electronic device (Kirovski, [0070], see one or more computers), the electronic device having an interface (See Kirovski, [0053] below) and stored executable instructions (Kirovski, [0070], see computer-executable instructions), comprising:
in response to that a query is entered at least partially in the query input space by a user, making an interactive comparison element visible and displayed with the query input space (See Kirovski [0053] above, as described previously, “… the comparison component 106 can receive the list 408 of comparable items and generate a pop-up (or similar) notification 410. If the comparison component 106 receives an input (e.g., from an input device represented by cursor 502) indicating a click on the notification 410, then the browser component 102 can transition 504 to a different configuration wherein the list 408 can be provided in a display 412 [i.e., “making an interactive comparison element visible and displayed with the query input space”].”)
Kirovski does not appear to explicitly disclose presenting a query input space in the interface on a first page;
wherein the comparison element provides a comparison option for a comparison, the comparison is based on the query provided by the user in the query input space, the comparison is further based on an object obtained from the query, the object and one or more comparators are compared to each other in the comparison, the one or more comparators are obtained based on the query and comparable to the object, the comparison further involves one or more comparison factors, the object and the one or more comparators are compared under the comparison factors;
transmitting the query to a service facility after the comparison element is activated by the user;
obtaining a comparison result from the service facility, the comparison result comprising information about the object obtained from the query and the one or more comparators which are comparable to the object; and
presenting in the interface the comparison result, the comparison result comprising further comprising a plurality of concise summaries based on the object, the one or more comparators, and the one or more comparison factors.
Cheng discloses presenting a query input space in the interface on a first page (Cheng, Fig. 6A
PNG
media_image1.png
479
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See text field 604 [i.e., “query input space for a user to enter a query” and the “Refine by” options 606 [i.e., “interactive search elements”] and where they are all on the same page [i.e., “on a first page”]);
wherein the comparison element provides a comparison option for a comparison, the comparison is based on the query provided by the user in the query input space (See Cheng, Fig. 6A reproduced above, see results presented are based on the search for “tablet” and see the check boxes for the brand, customer reviews and price [i.e., “comparison elements”]), the comparison is further based on an object obtained from the query (See Cheng, Fig. 6A reproduced above, see results presented are based on the search for “tablet” [i.e., “an object obtained from the query”]), the object and one or more comparators are compared to each other in the comparison, the one or more comparators are obtained based on the query and comparable to the object, the comparison further involves one or more comparison factors, the object and the one or more comparators are compared under the comparison factors (See Cheng, Fig. 6A reproduced above, see the tablets returned int eh search results are compared against one another based on one or more of “brand” (i.e., “Samsung”, “Amazon”, “Dragon” and/or “Touch Asus”), “customer reviews” (i.e., “good for kids”, “good sound quality” and/or “nice display”) and/or “price” (i.e., “under $50”, “$50-$100”, “$100-“$200”, “$200-$500” and/or “$500 & above”), which are the “one or more comparators” and “comparison factor”).
See claim 1 above for the motivation to combine.
The combination of Kirovski and Cheng does not appear to explicitly disclose transmitting the query to a service facility after the comparison element is activated by the user;
obtaining a comparison result from the service facility, the comparison result comprising information about the object obtained from the query and the one or more comparators which are comparable to the object; and
presenting in the interface the comparison result, the comparison result comprising further comprising a plurality of concise summaries based on the object, the one or more comparators, and the one or more comparison factors.
Kuffner discloses transmitting the query to a service facility after the comparison element is activated by the user (Kuffner [0024], see “… In an example embodiment, a server may receive a search query that includes a 3D model of a target object (e.g., a search query from a mobile device). ... The server may generate a search query result based on the first comparison. The search query result may include information regarding the target object, information regarding one or more objects similar to the target object, and/or a suggestion to obtain further images of the target object. The server may transmit the search query result (e.g., to a mobile device).”);
obtaining a comparison result from the service facility, the comparison result comprising information about the object obtained from the query and the one or more comparators which are comparable to the object (Kuffner [0040], see “… For example, upon receiving a 3D model from input source 102 in the form of a search query, the 3D model may be compared to the shape-search database 106 in order to obtain information to generate a search query result. The search query result may include information such as objects in the shape-search database 106 that are similar in any combination of shape, texture, color, size, bound volume, luminance, reflectance, and/or any other indexed object attribute [i.e., “one or more comparators which are comparable to the object”].”); and
presenting in the interface the comparison result, the comparison result comprising further comprising a plurality of concise summaries based on the object, the one or more comparators, and the one or more comparison factors (Kuffner [0043], see “… Methods may optionally include transmitting/receiving a search query that includes the 3D model, comparing the 3D model to a shape-search database, generating a search query result based on the comparison, and transmitting/receiving the search query result as described above and as illustrated in FIG. 1A, and elsewhere within the present disclosure;” and Kuffner, [0086], see setting the correct exposure, setting the number of images and setting the file format, which discloses the ability to “have a same presentation format”).
See claim 1 above for the motivation to combine.
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Kirovski, Cheng and Kuffner discloses further including presenting simultaneously in the interface a search result based on the query and/or the comparison result (Kuffner, [0024], see “… In an example embodiment, a server may receive a search query that includes a 3D model of a target object (e.g., a search query from a mobile device). The 3D model may be based on a plurality of images of the target object and the 3D model may include three-dimensional shape and color information about the target object. The 3D model may be compared to a shape-search database in a first comparison. The server may generate a search query result based on the first comparison. The search query result may include information regarding the target object, information regarding one or more objects similar to the target object, and/or a suggestion to obtain further images of the target object. The server may transmit the search query result (e.g., to a mobile device).”).
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Kirovski, Cheng and Kuffner discloses further including presenting an interactive search element for a search request and making the interactive comparison element visible after the query is entered at least partially in the query input space (Kuffner, [0118], see “… The search query may include just the 3D model. … Alternatively, search queries may be transmitted on periodic basis once image acquisition of the target object begins. Thus, search queries may include partial 3D model information about a target object. Such partial 3D model search queries may be sufficient to enable useful search query results from a cloud-based server system, for instance.”).
Claim 12
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Kirovski, Cheng and Kuffner discloses wherein the query is received through a voice recognition mechanism (Kuffner, [0049], see “… For example, user interface module 151 can be configured to send and/or receive data to and/or from user input devices such as a keyboard, a keypad, a touch screen, a computer mouse, a track ball, a joystick, a camera, a voice recognition module, and/or other similar devices. …”; and Kuffner, [0085], see “… For instance, the capture of images may be fully automated or initiated in another way, for example in response to a voice command via the microphone 242, a touch input using the touchpad/touchscreen 240, or a remote device communicating with the mobile device 200 via the wireless communication interface 238.”).
Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Kirovski, Cheng and Kuffner discloses wherein one of the plurality of concise summaries contains an image or a video clip only (Kuffner, [0026]-[0027], see “… The camera may be configured to acquire a plurality of images of a target object based on the portion of the light field reflected from the target object. The controller may be configured to determine a 3D model of the target object based on the images. The 3D model may include three-dimensional shape and color information about the target object. … the controller may be further configured to transmit a search query based on the 3D model and also receive a search query result. The multi-element display may also be configured to show a rendered representation of the 3D model, among other information about the 3D model; and Kuffner, [0065], see plurality of images).
Claim 14
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Kirovski, Cheng and Kuffner discloses further including presenting one or more interactive elements for an image search and/or a video search (Kuffner, [0074], see “... The user interface 216 may control or enable control of content and/or the layout of interactive images that may be displayed on the multi-element display panel 234. …”).
Claim 15
Kirovski discloses a computer implemented method performed for presenting information at an electronic device (Kirovski, [0070], see one or more computers), the electronic device having an interface (See Kirovski, [0053] below) and stored executable instructions (Kirovski, [0070], see computer-executable instructions), comprising:
displaying the content of the request for information in the interface after receiving the content of the request for information from the user, the content of the request for information including a word, a text, an image, a picture, or a video (See Kirovski [0053] above, as described previously, “… the comparison component 106 can receive the list 408 of comparable items and generate a pop-up (or similar) notification 410. If the comparison component 106 receives an input (e.g., from an input device represented by cursor 502) indicating a click on the notification 410, then the browser component 102 can transition 504 to a different configuration wherein the list 408 can be provided in a display 412.”);
presenting an interactive element in the interface (Kirovski, [0068], see “Turning now to FIG. 9, an exemplary flow chart of procedures defining a method 900 for facilitating comparison shopping in a non-invasive way is illustrated. Generally, at 902, a non-invasive notification can be provided for indicating that a list of comparable items is available for display. … At 904, the list of comparable items can be displayed in a non-invasive manner. For example, the non-invasive display can occur immediately upon a determination that a purchase page (or transaction page) has been detected, such as described in connection with act 702 from FIG. 7, or upon clicking upon the notification [i.e., “interactive element”] detailed at act 902. The list and/or display can be a pop-up overlay configurable to be always on top, populate a frame, a tab, or some other mechanism. It is to be appreciated that the list can provide hyperlinks to other purchase pages such as those other purchase pages that offer an item substantially similar to the described item, but at a better price, with more features, etc.”)
Kirovski does not appear to explicitly disclose presenting an input space in the interface for a user to enter content of a request for information on a first page;
wherein the interactive element is arranged for submitting the request for information, the request for information includes a request for a comparison, the comparison is based on the content of the request for information provided by the user, the comparison is further based on an object obtained from the content of the request for information, the object and one or more comparators are compared to each other in the comparison, the one or more comparators are obtained based on the content of the request for information and comparable to the object, the comparison further involves one or more comparison factors, the object and the one or more comparators are compared under the one or more comparison factors;
in response to activation of the interactive element, transmitting the request for information to a service facility;
obtaining a first result from the service facility, the first result comprising information about the object obtained from the content of the request for information and the one or more comparators that are comparable to the object;
presenting the first result in the interface, the first result further comprising a plurality of concise summaries based on the object, the one or more comparators, and the one or more comparison factors.
Cheng discloses presenting an input space in the interface for a user to enter content of a request for information on a first page (Cheng, Fig. 6A
PNG
media_image1.png
479
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See text field 604 [i.e., “query input space for a user to enter a query” and the “Refine by” options 606 [i.e., “interactive search elements”] and where they are all on the same page [i.e., “on a first page”]);
wherein the interactive element is arranged for submitting the request for information, the request for information includes a request for a comparison, the comparison is based on the content of the request for information provided by the user (See Cheng, Fig. 6A reproduced above, see results presented are based on the search for “tablet” and see the check boxes for the brand, customer reviews and price [i.e., “comparison elements”]), the comparison is further based on an object obtained from the content of the request for information (See Cheng, Fig. 6A reproduced above, see results presented are based on the search for “tablet” [i.e., “an object obtained from the query”]), the object and one or more comparators are compared to each other in the comparison, the one or more comparators are obtained based on the content of the request for information and comparable to the object, the comparison further involves one or more comparison factors, the object and the one or more comparators are compared under the one or more comparison factors (See Cheng, Fig. 6A reproduced above, see the tablets returned int eh search results are compared against one another based on one or more of “brand” (i.e., “Samsung”, “Amazon”, “Dragon” and/or “Touch Asus”), “customer reviews” (i.e., “good for kids”, “good sound quality” and/or “nice display”) and/or “price” (i.e., “under $50”, “$50-$100”, “$100-“$200”, “$200-$500” and/or “$500 & above”), which are the “one or more comparators” and “comparison factors”).
See claim 1 above for the motivation to combine.
The combination of Kirovski and Cheng does not appear to explicitly disclose in response to activation of the interactive element, transmitting the request for information to a service facility;
obtaining a first result from the service facility, the first result comprising information about the object obtained from the content of the request for information and the one or more comparators that are comparable to the object;
presenting the first result in the interface, the first result further comprising a plurality of concise summaries based on the object, the one or more comparators, and the one or more comparison factors.
Kuffner discloses in response to activation of the interactive element, transmitting the request for information to a service facility (Kuffner [0024], see “… In an example embodiment, a server may receive a search query that includes a 3D model of a target object (e.g., a search query from a mobile device). ... The server may generate a search query result based on the first comparison. The search query result may include information regarding the target object, information regarding one or more objects similar to the target object, and/or a suggestion to obtain further images of the target object. The server may transmit the search query result (e.g., to a mobile device).”);
obtaining a first result from the service facility, the first result comprising information about the object obtained from the content of the request for information and the one or more comparators that are comparable to the object (Kuffner [0040], see “… For example, upon receiving a 3D model from input source 102 in the form of a search query, the 3D model may be compared to the shape-search database 106 in order to obtain information to generate a search query result. The search query result may include information such as objects in the shape-search database 106 that are similar in any combination of shape, texture, color, size, bound volume, luminance, reflectance, and/or any other indexed object attribute [i.e., “one or more comparators that are comparable to the object”].”); and
presenting the first result in the interface, the first result further comprising a plurality of concise summaries based on the object, the one or more comparators, and the one or more comparison factors (Kuffner [0043], see “… Methods may optionally include transmitting/receiving a search query that includes the 3D model, comparing the 3D model to a shape-search database, generating a search query result based on the comparison, and transmitting/receiving the search query result as described above and as illustrated in FIG. 1A, and elsewhere within the present disclosure;” and Kuffner, [0086], see setting the correct exposure, setting the number of images and setting the file format, which discloses the ability to “have a same presentation format”).
See claim 1 above for the motivation to combine.
Claim 16
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Kirovski, Cheng and Kuffner discloses further including presenting a second result in the interface, the second result being based on a search with respect to the content of the request for information (Kirovski, [0068], see “... For example, the non-invasive display can occur immediately upon a determination that a purchase page (or transaction page) has been detected, such as described in connection with act 702 from FIG. 7, or upon clicking upon the notification detailed at act 902. The list and/or display can be a pop-up overlay configurable to be always on top [, populate a frame, a tab, or some other mechanism. It is to be appreciated that the list can provide hyperlinks to other purchase pages such as those other purchase pages that offer an item substantially similar to the described item, but at a better price, with more features, etc.”).
Claim 17
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Kirovski, Cheng and Kuffner discloses further including presenting the one or more comparators in the interface before presenting the first result (Kuffner [0040], see “… For example, upon receiving a 3D model from input source 102 in the form of a search query, the 3D model may be compared to the shape-search database 106 in order to obtain information to generate a search query result. The search query result may include information such as objects in the shape-search database 106 that are similar in any combination of shape, texture, color, size, bound volume, luminance, reflectance, and/or any other indexed object attribute [i.e., “one or more comparators”].”).
Claim 18
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Kirovski, Cheng and Kuffner discloses further including presenting an interactive graphic object in the interface for a search based on the content of the request for information (Kirovski [0053], see “FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary system 500 that can employ frames to provide a comparative shopping tool. Depicted are the browser component 102 and the web document 104, the comparison component 106 can receive the list 408 of comparable items [i.e., “interface”] and generate a pop-up (or similar) notification 410. If the comparison component 106 receives an input (e.g., from an input device represented by cursor 502) indicating a click on the notification 410 [i.e., “interactive graphic object”], then the browser component 102 can transition 504 to a different configuration wherein the list 408 can be provided in a display 412. As detailed in connection with FIG. 4, the display 412 can be an overlay, frame, or any other appropriate mechanism that can, e.g., provide convenience as well as remain relatively non-invasive.”).
Claim 19
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Kirovski, Cheng and Kuffner discloses wherein presenting the interactive element in the interface is performed after the content of the request for information is entered at least partially by the user (Kirovski [0053], see “FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary system 500 that can employ frames to provide a comparative shopping tool. Depicted are the browser component 102 and the web document 104, the comparison component 106 can receive the list 408 of comparable items [i.e., “interface”] and generate a pop-up (or similar) notification 410. If the comparison component 106 receives an input (e.g., from an input device represented by cursor 502) indicating a click on the notification 410 [i.e., “interactive graphic object”], then the browser component 102 can transition 504 to a different configuration wherein the list 408 can be provided in a display 412. As detailed in connection with FIG. 4, the display 412 can be an overlay, frame, or any other appropriate mechanism that can, e.g., provide convenience as well as remain relatively non-invasive.”).
Claim 20
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Kirovski, Cheng and Kuffner discloses wherein the request for information is received through a voice recognition mechanism (Kuffner, [0049], see “… For example, user interface module 151 can be configured to send and/or receive data to and/or from user input devices such as a keyboard, a keypad, a touch screen, a computer mouse, a track ball, a joystick, a camera, a voice recognition module, and/or other similar devices. …”; and Kuffner, [0085], see “… For instance, the capture of images may be fully automated or initiated in another way, for example in response to a voice command via the microphone 242, a touch input using the touchpad/touchscreen 240, or a remote device communicating with the mobile device 200 via the wireless communication interface 238.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
– Baron et al., 2022/0019627 for comparative search within user-generated content;
– Moricz, 2007/0055745 for accessing deep web information associated with transportation services using a search queries;
– Jamil et al., 2009/0234811 for combined web browsing and searching; and
– Vailaya et al., WO 2008/130501 for unstructured and semi-structured document processing and searching.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUBERT G CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1396. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00A-5:00P EST; alt. F 8:00A-4:00P EST.
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, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached at (571) 270-0474. 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.
Examiner: Hubert Cheung
/Hubert Cheung/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2152Date: February 3, 2026
/NEVEEN ABEL JALIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2152