DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed 09/17/2025.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 56-58, 60-62, 64-68, 70-72, and 74-77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 56-58, 60-62, 64-68, 70-72, and 74-77 are rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting.
Claims 1-55, 59, 63, 69, and 73 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s request to hold the non-statutory double patenting rejection in abeyance has been acknowledged. The double patenting rejections of claims 56-58, 60-62, 64-68, 70-72, and 74-77 are currently being maintained.
Applicant generally asserts that the prior art does not teach the new limitations included in independent claims 56 and 66. Applicant’s arguments are respectfully moot given the new grounds for rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 56, 62, 66, and 72 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,468,121 B2 (hereinafter ‘121) in view of TIJSSEN (US 2017/0242913 A1) and SOMAIYA (US 2016/0078101 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are encompassed within the claims of ‘121 or otherwise obvious over the prior art where the claims of ‘121 are deficient. See the comparison of the claims in the table below.
Instant Application
Claims of ‘121
Comments
(Claim 56) A method for providing autocomplete suggestions in a content item search interface, the method comprising:
(Claim 1) A method for providing autocomplete suggestions in a search interface, the method comprising:
Same analysis applies to claim 66.
receiving, at the content item search interface, user input;
receiving a text input;
parsing the user input into a plurality of portions; identifying, for each portion of the plurality of portions, different attributes
identifying a plurality of portions of the text input, each portion corresponding to a different attribute
Substantially similar. “Parsing the user input” is obvious over the prior art.
retrieving, based on the identified different attributes, alternate texts for each portion, each alternate text related to each corresponding portion of the plurality of portions;
…retrieving a plurality of alternate texts for the portion, wherein a corresponding user interface element contains an original text of the portion and the plurality of alternate texts for the portion;
Each portion corresponds to a different attribute, so the alternate texts are for each attribute.
determining a relevance of each of the alternate texts…
…determining a relevance score for each alternate text of the plurality of alternate texts…
Substantially similar.
generating for display the alternate texts for each attribute in a user interface element, wherein the user interface element is configured to display the different attributes and the alternate texts for each attribute;
for each portion of the plurality of portions:… simultaneously displaying a first subset of alternate texts above the original text, and a second subset of alternate texts below the original text;
Claim 1 of ‘121 is narrower.
and wherein the alternate texts for each attribute are ordered by the relevance…
…and ordering the alternate texts according to the relevance scores of each alternate text,
Substantially similar.
accepting a selection of an alternate text; generating for display a search query based on the selection;
receiving a selection of an alternate text in at least one user interface element; generating a search query based on each portion for which no alternate text was selected and each selected alternate text;
Claim 1 of ‘121 is narrower.
retrieving search results based on the search query; and generating for display the search results.
retrieving a plurality of search results based on the search query; and generating for simultaneous display the plurality of search results.
Substantially similar.
Regarding Claims 56 and 66, claim 1 of ‘121 does not explicitly recite “parsing the user input into a plurality of portions;”
However, TIJSSEN teaches parsing the user input into a plurality of portions; (“Upon receiving a user's search query input, the search management system adds the user's search query input 112 to the search query input box 106… the search management system also begins analyzing the search query input 110 for one or more key terms… in order to process natural language input, the search management system parses strings of characters into words and phrases, and then tags various parts of speech within the parsed input” Paragraphs 34-35. A user input is received at a search interface and the search management system parses the input in a plurality of portions comprising key terms.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the determination of the plurality of portions and respective attributes of a search query in order to generate replacement terms for each portion taught by claim 1 of ‘121 would include parsing the user input as taught by TIJSSEN. Since the references are similarly directed search interfaces for providing the user with suggested replacement terms, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by TIJSSEN (¶ 35), parsing is necessary in order to process natural language input.
Claim 1 of ‘121 in view of TIJSSEN does not teach determining, based on a user profile associated with the user input, user preference data for each alternate text and each of the plurality of portions… and each of the plurality of portions is displayed among the alternate texts according to the respective determined user preference data;
However, SOMAIYA, which is also directed to providing search query suggestions, teaches determining, based on a user profile associated with the user input, user preference data for each alternate text and each of the plurality of portions… (¶ 18-19, 30, 32, 40: User preference data for each alternate text is determined in order to personalize the list of suggestions provided to the user. The preference data is determined from previous user sessions and is maintained for each user in a session history server, i.e. a user profile comprising previous search histories is stored. The preference data includes the previous search history of a user.)
and each of the plurality of portions is displayed among the alternate texts according to the respective determined user preference data; (¶ 18-19, 30: Query suggestions are modified based on the user preferences determined from previous searches of the user. For example, “if the user previously entered the search query “gucci handbag,” responsive to typing “belt” in the search box a search query suggestion for “gucci belt” may be shown.” ¶ 18.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the user interface providing alternate texts for individual key words of a search query taught by claim 1 of ‘121 in view of TIJSSEN by ranking and re-ranking the suggestions based on user preferences data as taught by SOMAIYA. Since SOMAIYA is also directed to providing alternate text suggestions for a search term, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by SOMAIYA (¶ 18), “Utilizing this information and modifying the standard search query suggestions to take into account such implicit preferences may delight the user, and reduce her time to quickly reach relevant search queries”. Such an implementation therefore would have been advantageous to a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to improve the user experience.
Claim 66 is directed to a system but otherwise recites the same limitations as claim 56. Claim 66 is therefore rejected using the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 62, claim 1 of ‘121 in view of TIJSSEN and SOMAIYA further teaches wherein the determining, based on the user profile associated with the user input, the user preference data for each alternate text and each of the plurality of portions is preceded by accessing a data structure describing the user preference data for content items that a user has previously consumed, has consumed recently, or has consumed often. (SOMAIYA, ¶ 18-19, 32, 40, 55-56: A data structure is maintained in the session history server that describes the user preference data for previously searched (i.e. consumed) content items, including a frequency of occurrence of a relevant word being in the user’s search history. The data structure is accessed in order to determine the expanded search query suggestions that are personalized for each user.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 56 applies to claim 62.
Claim 72 recites the same limitations as claim 62 and is rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Claims 57-58, 60-61, 67-68, and 70-71 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,468,121 B2 (hereinafter ‘121) in view of TIJSSEN (US 2017/0242913 A1), SOMAIYA (US 2016/0078101 A1), and MARANTZ (US 2015/0269176 A1).
Claim 1 of ‘121 does not recite the limitations of claims 57-58, 60-61, 67-68, and 70-71. See the 103 rejection of claims 57-58 and 60-61 for an explanation of the teachings of MARANTZ and how the reference renders obvious the limitations of claims 57-58 and 60-61 in combination with the teachings of claim 1 of ‘121.
Claims 64 and 74 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,468,121 B2 (hereinafter ‘121) in view of TIJSSEN (US 2017/0242913 A1), SOMAIYA (US 2016/0078101 A1), and YUEN (US 2014/0172814 A1).
Claim 1 of ‘121 does not recite the limitations of claims 64-65 and 74-75. See the 103 rejection of claims 64 for an explanation of the teachings of YUEN and how the references render obvious the limitations of claim 64 in combination with the teachings of claim 1 of ‘121.
Claims 65 and 75 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,468,121 B2 (hereinafter ‘121) in view of TIJSSEN (US 2017/0242913 A1), SOMAIYA (US 2016/0078101 A1), YUEN (US 2014/0172814 A1), and DAVE (US 7,917,528 B1).
Claim 1 of ‘121 does not recite the limitations of claims 64-65 and 74-75. See the 103 rejection of claims 65 for an explanation of the teachings of YUEN and DAVE and how the references render obvious the limitations of claim 65 in combination with the teachings of claim 1 of ‘121.
Claims 76-77 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,468,121 B2 (hereinafter ‘121) in view of TIJSSEN (US 2017/0242913 A1), SOMAIYA (US 2016/0078101 A1), and DAVE (US 7,917,528 B1).
Claim 1 of ‘121 does not recite the limitations of claims 76-77. See the 103 rejection of claims 76 for an explanation of the teachings of DAVE and how the references render obvious the limitations of claim 76 in combination with the teachings of claim 1 of ‘121.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 56, 62, 66, and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TIJSSEN (US 2017/0242913 A1) in view of SOMAIYA (US 2016/0078101 A1).
Regarding Claim 56, TIJSSEN teaches a method for providing autocomplete suggestions in a content item search interface, the method comprising: (“the search management system identifies one or more key terms in search query. The search management system identifies various suggested replacement terms based on the key terms and the semantics of the search query” Paragraph 0020. See Figure 3 for the overall process of providing autocomplete suggestions in a search interface.)
receiving, at the content item search interface, user input; parsing the user input into a plurality of portions; (“Upon receiving a user's search query input, the search management system adds the user's search query input 112 to the search query input box 106… the search management system also begins analyzing the search query input 110 for one or more key terms… in order to process natural language input, the search management system parses strings of characters into words and phrases, and then tags various parts of speech within the parsed input” Paragraphs 34-35. A user input is received at a search interface and the search management system parses the input in a plurality of portions comprising key terms.)
identifying, for each portion of the plurality of portions, different attributes (“the search management system will analyze the search query input 110 to determine that "men's" and "shoes" are key terms… semantically related terms for a modifier/term pair can include hypernyms, hyponyms, coordinate terms, and other types of semantically related terms. Accordingly, in response to the search management system identifying the adjective-noun pair, “men's shoes,” the search management system can automatically identify hypernyms, hyponyms, and coordinate terms related to “men's shoes.” Paragraphs 47-49. Each word in the example input is a portion corresponding to a different attribute, or ontology, as described in Paragraph 23-25 and 49. For example, as shown in Fig. 1E, the attribute for the word “shoes” in the input is “Apparel”.)
retrieving, based on the identified different attributes, alternate texts for each portion, each alternate text related to each corresponding portion of the plurality of portions…(“Next, the search management system utilizes semantic information associated with the search query input 110 to identify one or more suggested replacement terms.” Paragraph 0047. See Paragraph 0051, which provides more specific replacement terms for “shoes”, such as “cleats” and Figure 1E, which shows alternate text for “shoes” related to a broader category of “apparel”. Also see Paragraph 0054, which discusses alternative terms for “men’s”. The replacement terms or expansion terns (i.e. replacing a key word with an augmented phrase) therefore correspond to each portion of the plurality of portions of the user search query.)
generating for display the alternate texts for each attribute in a user interface element, wherein the user interface element is configured to display the different attributes and the alternate texts for each attribute… (“as shown in FIG. 1C, the search management system provides an expansion suggestion area 116 adjacent to the search results box 108 that includes a plurality of expansion suggestion controls 118a-118g” Paragraph 0049. Suggestion controls 118a-118g are alternate text related to the portion “shoes”. Alternatively, see Figure 1E, which shows another user interface element 116, which contains suggested alternate text for the portion “shoes”. In Fig. 1C, the attribute that is displayed is “shoes” and the alternative texts for the attribute are, for example, “basketball” and “cleats”. In Fig. 1E, the attribute that is determined and displayed is “apparel” and the alternative texts for the attribute include, for example, “shorts” and “pants”.)
accepting a selection of an alternate text; generating for display a search query based on the selection; (“as shown in FIGS. 1D and in response to the user selecting the expansion suggestion controls 118c and 118e, the search management system expands the search query input 110 based on the selected expansion suggestion controls.” Paragraph 0050. The user selects the alternate text in the area 116. A new, more specific query, “men’s cleats and running shoes”, is generated based on the user’s selections. Alternatively, see Paragraph 0056 and Figure 1E, which show a user selection of the “shoes” key term (user interface element) that results in different suggestions of alternate text that are selectable. Also see Paragraphs 0057 and 0062, which discuss touch operations on each key term to provide the alternate suggestions or to delete the key term. The key terms are therefore user interface elements, as highlighted in Figures 1B-1I.)
retrieving search results based on the search query; and generating for display the search results. (“In response to the user's expansion suggestion selections, the search management system also updates the search results displayed within the search results box 108. As shown in FIG. 1D, the search management system updates the search results box 108 to include only search results that are "men's cleats and running shoes."” Paragraph 0053. See the transition from Figure 1C to 1D, which shows updated results of the search query.)
TIJSSEN does not teach determining a relevance of each of the alternate texts; determining, based on a user profile associated with the user input, user preference data for each alternate text and each of the plurality of portions… and wherein the alternate texts for each attribute are ordered by the relevance, and each of the plurality of portions is displayed among the alternate texts according to the respective determined user preference data;
However, SOMAIYA, which is also directed to providing search query suggestions, teaches determining a relevance of each of the alternate texts; (¶ 31, 51, 64-65, 69, 93-94: Query suggestions, which includes suggestions for portions of a query, are scored in order to rank the suggestions by relevance.)
determining, based on a user profile associated with the user input, user preference data for each alternate text and each of the plurality of portions… (¶ 18-19, 30, 32, 40: User preference data for each alternate text is determined in order to personalize the list of suggestions provided to the user. The preference data is determined from previous user sessions and is maintained for each user in a session history server, i.e. a user profile comprising previous search histories is stored. The preference data includes the previous search history of a user.)
and wherein the alternate texts for each attribute are ordered by the relevance, (¶ 51, 64-65, 69, 93-94: The query suggestions are selected and ranked according to a selection score for each suggestion, which is a measure of relevance of the suggestion.)
and each of the plurality of portions is displayed among the alternate texts according to the respective determined user preference data; (¶ 18-19, 30: Query suggestions are modified based on the user preferences determined from previous searches of the user. For example, “if the user previously entered the search query “gucci handbag,” responsive to typing “belt” in the search box a search query suggestion for “gucci belt” may be shown.” ¶ 18.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the user interface providing alternate texts for individual key words of a search query taught by TIJSSEN by ranking and re-ranking the suggestions based on relevance and user preferences data as taught by SOMAIYA. Since SOMAIYA is also directed to providing alternate text suggestions for a search term, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by SOMAIYA (¶ 18), “Utilizing this information and modifying the standard search query suggestions to take into account such implicit preferences may delight the user, and reduce her time to quickly reach relevant search queries”. Such an implementation therefore would have been advantageous to a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to improve the user experience.
Claim 66 is directed to a system but otherwise recites the same limitations as claim 56. Claim 66 is therefore rejected using the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 62, TIJSSEN in view of SOMAIYA further teaches wherein the determining, based on the user profile associated with the user input, the user preference data for each alternate text and each of the plurality of portions is preceded by accessing a data structure describing the user preference data for content items that a user has previously consumed, has consumed recently, or has consumed often. (SOMAIYA, ¶ 18-19, 32, 40, 55-56: A data structure is maintained in the session history server that describes the user preference data for previously searched (i.e. consumed) content items, including a frequency of occurrence of a relevant word being in the user’s search history. The data structure is accessed in order to determine the expanded search query suggestions that are personalized for each user.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 56 applies to claim 62.
Claim 72 recites the same limitations as claim 62 and is rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Claims 57-58, 60-61, 67-68, and 70-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TIJSSEN (US 2017/0242913 A1) in view of SOMAIYA (US 2016/0078101 A1) and further in view of MARANTZ (US 2015/0269176 A1).
Regarding Claim 57, TIJSSEN in view of SOMAIYA teaches all the limitations of claim 56, on which claim 57 depends.
TIJSSEN in view of SOMAIYA does not teach wherein the plurality of portions include at least one of a name of an actor or a genre.
However, MARANTZ, which is similarly directed to a user interface for refining a search query, teaches retrieving query text suggestions based on different attributes and teaches wherein the plurality of portions include at least one of a name of an actor or a genre. (“Assume that the user is attempting to find a movie that was released in 2013 that stars the actor Robert Downey Jr. But assume that the user cannot quite remember the name of the movie. The user may start by inputting the partial query, “action movies.” That partial query specifies a single constraint, in the domain of movies, associated with the attribute-value pair “genre=action.”” Paragraph 50. “the user selects an actor refinement option 712 in the refinement tool 706. In response… The suggestion generating module 110 also generates a new set of synthetic query suggestions 806 based on the user’s selection; the user interface module 108 then presents that set of synthetic query suggestions 806 in the suggestion section 608” Paragraph 82. Suggestions corresponding to a particular attribute are presented responsive to a user selection. Also see Paragraph 1 and Figure 2, which shows a structured knowledge base including “actor” and “genre” attributes of the entities listed in the knowledge base. It would have been obvious for portions of an input query to map to each attribute listed in the data structure.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the user interface for presenting ranked alternate texts for different portions of a query based on the attribute of each portion taught by TIJSSEN in view of SOMAIYA by applying the search interface to retrieving media content and modifying the attributes of each portion to include an actor or genre as taught by MARANTZ. Since the references are similarly directed to search query formulation, the combination would have yielded predictable results. Such an implementation would have amounted to a simple substitution of the type of content being retrieved and the attributes that are searched: in other words, applying the search interface to searching media content rather than clothing. Furthermore, as discussed by MARANTZ (Paragraph 1), such an implementation would be useful for allowing a user to search for a particular movie without knowing the name of the movie.
Claim 67 recites the same limitations as claim 57 and is rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 58, TIJSSEN in view of SOMAIYA teaches all the limitations of claim 56, on which claim 58 depends.
TIJSSEN in view of SOMAIYA does not teach wherein the plurality of portions include a name of an actor, a genre, and a content type.
However, MARANTZ, which is similarly directed to a user interface for refining a search query, teaches retrieving query text suggestions based on different attributes and teaches wherein the plurality of portions include a name of an actor, a genre, and a content type. (See the rejection of claim 57 regarding “actor” and “genre”. Regarding “content type”, Paragraph 33 teaches “an “entity” may correspond to any identifiable focus of interest. In the most prominent examples in this description, different entities correspond to products produced by companies, media items (e.g., movies, musical releases, books, etc.), and so on.” Paragraph 50 teaches “The user may start by inputting the partial query, “action movies.” That partial query specifies a single constraint, in the domain of movies, associated with the attribute-value pair “genre=action.””. Also see Paragraph 35: While not illustrated in the figures, the data structure that maintains the content being searched includes an attribute of “content type”, such as movies, music, and books, since there are different database tables for each content type. An alternate text suggestion (in view of TIJSSEN) for a user input of “movies” would include “music” and “books”.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the user interface for presenting ranked alternate texts for different portions of a query based on the attribute of each portion taught by TIJSSEN in view of SOMAIYA by applying the search interface to retrieving media content and modifying the attributes of each portion to include an actor, genre, and content type as taught by MARANTZ. Since the references are similarly directed to search query formulation, the combination would have yielded predictable results. Such an implementation would have amounted to a simple substitution of the type of content being retrieved and the attributes that are searched: in other words, applying the search interface to searching media content rather than clothing and adjusting the attributes the alternate text are organized under accordingly. Furthermore, as discussed by MARANTZ (Paragraph 1), such an implementation would be useful for allowing a user to search for a particular movie without knowing the name of the movie.
Claim 68 recites the same limitations as claim 58 and is rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 60, TIJSSEN in view of SOMAIYA teaches all the limitations of claim 56, on which claim 60 depends.
TIJSSEN in view of SOMAIYA does not teach wherein the retrieving the alternate texts for each portion includes accessing a data structure describing content items.
However, MARANTZ, which is similarly directed to a user interface for refining a search query, teaches wherein the retrieving the alternate texts for each portion includes accessing a data structure describing content items. (“the structured knowledge base provides information regarding a plurality of entities in a structured form, e.g., using a particular data structure, such as a graph data structure. For example, in the example of FIG. 2, the structured knowledge base includes a series of rows corresponding to different respective movies. In other words, each row constitutes an entity item, which represents a particular movie… A series of remaining columns 206 are devoted to different attributes of the movies. Each entry in this section corresponds to an attribute-value pair, including an attribute item and an associated attribute value item. For example, the entry 208 indicates that the genre of the movie having the title “Avatar” is “science fiction.” Paragraph 34. The suggested text- corresponding to the actor attribute, for example- is retrieved from a data structure that describes content items, namely movies. In the example of Figure 8 and Paragraph 82, the actors that are retrieved from the data structure are actors that meet the other attributes already entered in the query, namely “action movies in 2013”.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of retrieval of alternate texts for each attribute of a plurality of portions of a query taught by TIJSSEN in view of SOMAIYA by accessing a data structure describing available content items and their relationships, including various attributes, as taught by MARANTZ. Since the references are similarly directed to search query formulation, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As suggested by MARANTZ (Paragraph 52-53), this would aide the user in retrieving relevant and more accurate results by providing query suggestions that meet the other attributes of the query, which is determined by the 22nformationn maintained in the structured knowledge base.
Claim 70 recites the same limitations as claim 60 and is rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 61, TIJSSEN in view of SOMAIYA and MARANTZ further teaches wherein the data structure describing content items includes available content items, relationships between the available content items, (MARANTZ “uses some mechanism to represent the relationships among the information items. In one example, the structured knowledge base can represent the information items and relationships in a table form… For example, a movies database can store information regarding movies and the relationships among the movies” Paragraphs 36-38. The data structure includes available content items, namely movies, and the relationships between the available content items, such as their directors, actors, ratings, and popularity. See Fig. 2.)
actors appearing in the available content items, and content descriptors of the available content items. (MARANTZ, “The suggestion generating module 110 can determine whether the structured knowledge base includes information pertaining to actor names. Assume that it does. The suggestion generating module 110 may then make the further determination that the structured knowledge base contains actor names who have appeared in action movies, as the user’s query contains the single constraint “genre=movies.” Assume that it does. The suggestion generating module 110 can then apply at least one query-expression grammar to generate one or more synthetic query suggestions which contain the names of actors specified in the structured knowledge base, who have also appeared in action movies” Paragraph 52. See Fig. 2: the structured database includes actors appearing in the available content items, and the actors are retrieved from the database based on the context of the query. Query suggestions are only made for actors appearing in the specified movie genre. A movie genre is a content descriptor of the available content items described by the data structure. The title of the movie is also a “content descriptor”.)
The same reason to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 60 applies to claim 61.
Claim 71 recites the same limitations as claim 61 and is rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Claims 64 and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TIJSSEN (US 2017/0242913 A1) in view of SOMAIYA (US 2016/0078101 A1) and further in view of YUEN (US 2014/0172814 A1).
Regarding Claim 64, TIJSSEN in view of SOMAIYA teaches all the limitations of claim 56, on which claim 64 depends.
While TIJSSEN teaches updating the analysis of a query after the user selects a replacement term (¶ 44), TIJSSEN in view of SOMAIYA does not explicitly teach based on accepting the selection of one of the alternate texts, automatically updating the retrieved alternate text for at least one other portion of the plurality of portions.
However, YUEN, which is similarly directed to an interactive search interface, teaches based on accepting the selection of one of the alternate texts, automatically updating the retrieved alternate text for at least one other portion of the plurality of portions. (¶ 49-50, Figs. 4-5: A user selection of an alternate text for a partial query results in an update of the retrieved alternate texts, as shown in the transition from Figure 4 to Figure 5. The updated alternate texts include the selected alternate text and a second portion related to the selection.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the suggestion of replacement terms for different portions of a search query having different attributes taught by TIJSSEN in view of SOMAIYA by updating search suggestions for another portion of a query after user selection of a first suggestion as suggested by YUEN. Since the references are similarly directed to search interfaces for presenting suggested query terms and TIJSSEN at least teaches updating the semantic analysis of a query after a user selects an alternate text, the combination would have yielded predictable results and would have amounted to updating the suggestions of the different parts of the query according to the updated context. As taught by YUEN (¶ 3), this would aid a user in constructing a lengthy query and improve the flexibility of the interface by allowing the user to make additional edits before the query is executed.
Claim 74 recites the same limitations as claim 64 and is rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Claims 65 and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TIJSSEN (US 2017/0242913 A1) in view of SOMAIYA (US 2016/0078101 A1) and further in view of YUEN (US 2014/0172814 A1) and DAVE (US 7,917,528 B1).
Regarding Claim 65, TIJSSEN in view of SOMAIYA and YUEN teaches all the limitations of claim 64, on which claim 65 depends.
YUEN further teaches wherein the selection of the one of the alternate texts for the one of the different attributes automatically updates the search query by updating other attributes of the different attributes and alternate texts for the other portions of the plurality of portions. (YUEN, ¶ 49-50, Figs. 4-5: User selection of an alternate text for a partial query results in an update of the retrieved alternate texts, as shown in the transition from Figure 4 to Figure 5. The updated alternate texts include the selected alternate text and a second portion related to the selection.
DAVE provides further support for the above limitations. (See Column 10 Lines 1-15 and Figure 10: selection of a first text for refinement results in suggestions being made for other portions of the query based on relevance of the term or popularity of the results. In combination with TIJSSEN, which teaches displaying each key term as an individual user interface element, these suggestions would be provided for selection by the user to replace or modify the corresponding key term.)
The same motivation to combine YUEN with TIJSSEN and SOMAIYA discussed in the rejection of claim 64 applies to claim 65. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the user interface providing alternate text for each key term in a query in order to modify a search query taught by TIJSSEN by providing alternate text suggestions for other portions of a query as taught by DAVE. Since both references are directed to providing replacement text for a query, the combination would have yielded predictable results. Furthermore, as taught by DAVE (Column 1 Lines 52-55), “Refinements can also enable a searcher to efficiently refine search queries without spending time deliberating over search terms that might provide more relevant results identifying the documents most relevant to the subject for which the searcher is searching.”
Claim 75 recites the same limitations as claim 65 and is rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Claims 76-77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TIJSSEN (US 2017/0242913 A1) in view of SOMAIYA (US 2016/0078101 A1) and further in view of DAVE (US 7,917,528 B1).
Regarding Claim 76, TIJSSEN in view of SOMAIYA teaches all the limitations of claim 56, on which claim 76 depends.
TIJSSEN in view of SOMAIYA does not teach wherein retrieving alternate texts for each portion is further based on at least one other attribute associated with at least one other portion of the plurality of portions.
However, DAVE, which is also directed to providing suggestions of alternate text for a query, teaches wherein retrieving alternate texts for each portion is further based on at least one other attribute associated with at least one other portion of the plurality of portions. (“the context of the refinement indication indicates a refinement of the search term “New Jersey.” The agent, for example, can then operate to provide suggested query string refinements to the user in the form of a refinements list representation 1040. In some implementations, the agent only suggests refinements to the selected token. However, in other implementations, such as shown in FIG. 10, the agent suggests refinements to each of the tokens included in the original query string… The refinements can include alternative search terms related to the search terms included in the search query. In some examples, the refinements can be weighted, for example, based on a strength of association with the search terms included in the search query” Col. 7:6-10; 7:29-34. Each “token” corresponds to a “concept”, or attribute. Refinements are determined for each token and the refinements are based on the strength of their association with the original search query and the contextual indication made by the user, such as a user selecting or highlighting the token. The refinements retrieved for other portions of the query are therefore based on at least one attribute associated with the selected portion of the original query.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the user interface providing alternate texts for individual key words of a search query taught by TIJSSEN in view of SOMAIYA by providing alternate texts based on attributes of other portions of a query as taught by DAVE. Since DAVE is also directed to providing alternate text suggestions for individual concepts within a query, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As suggested by DAVE (Col. 1:52-55), sorting suggested alternate text would allow a user to “efficiently refine search queries without spending time deliberating over search terms that might provide more relevant results identifying the documents most relevant to the subject for which the searcher is searching.” Furthermore, DAVE (Col. 3:1-8) suggests that contextual refinements would allow appropriate alternative text to be filtered, reordered, and suggested.
Claim 77 recites the same limitations as claim 76 and is rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Im (US 2009/0049020 A1) teaches a recommendation service log that stores information to provide the user with the user's frequently searched keyword as a user-customized recommended word. (¶ 31)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI RAFAT OKASHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 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, SCOTT BADERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/RAMI R OKASHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118