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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This responds to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed 04/21/2025. Claims 21 and 40 have been amended. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21- 40 are now pending in this Application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 appears to be directed to an abstract idea without reciting additional limitations that tie it to a practical application or without reciting additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. One can mentally generate graph with nodes for spaces in a building as well as assets that are contained within those spaces. Then one can also mentally associate and classify senor readings and generate relationships between spaces, assets and sensors. The additional limitations are receiving data. These additional limitations are mere data gathering which are insignificant extra solution activities under step 2A prong II and well understood routine and conventional under step 2B (For Berkhiemer See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Versata.)
Step 2A, Prong One: Mathematical Concepts
Independent claims 21, 35 and 40 are directed to constructing answers to queries.
Receiving a query from a client computing device that is in network communication with the computing system; identifying a search result based upon the query, where the search result includes content;
[0031] As described previously, the constructor module 124 can construct the answer in the form of a list or table. The list can include a header and several list elements, wherein the header describes overall content of the list and the list elements are elements of the list. The table can include at least one table row. Thus, for example, when the search engine 118 receives the query “most home runs in baseball this year”, the constructor module 124 can construct an answer to the query, wherein the answer is in the form of a list or a table. When the answer is in the form of a list, the header of the list may be “home runs in 2019”, a first element of the list can be a name of a first baseball player and a number of home runs hit by the first baseball player, a second element of the list can be a name of a second baseball player and a number of home runs hit by the second baseball player, and so forth. In the webpage from which the answer is constructed by the constructor module 124, however, the name of the first baseball player and the name of the second baseball player may not be immediately adjacent to one another. For example, biographical text may separate the name of the first player from the name of the second player. The constructor module 124, however, nevertheless is able to construct the answer, which includes the first two list elements described above, despite the names of the first player and the second player being separated by text in the webpage from which the answer was constructed .
Subsequent to the search result being identified, constructing an instant answer for the query, where the instant answer comprises a table that includes entries, and further where the entries correspond to the content in the search result;
[0025] Described herein are various technologies pertaining to constructing answers to queries based upon contents of webpages, wherein the answers are constructed at runtime by processing content of webpages identified as being relevant to the queries. A constructed answer can be in the form of a list or table, wherein the list includes a header and one or more list elements and the table includes at least one table row. Further, the technologies described herein allow for constructing an answer in list or table form, wherein the answer includes a first list or table element and a second list or table element that are adjacent to one another in the answer but are not adjacent to one another in the webpage used to construct the answer. While the examples described herein relate to constructing answers based upon content of webpages, it is to be understood that the technologies described herein are also well-suited for constructing answers based upon content of other types of documents, such as emails, word processing documents, and the like.
Returning the instant answer to the client computing device; causing the table to be displayed at the client computing device.
[0067] It is again to be noted that while the examples described herein pertain to search engines that identify webpages that are relevant to the query, the technologies described herein are not limited to such web-based search engines. The technologies described herein are equally well-suited for constructing answers to queries executed over other types of documents, such as files retained in a file system, email documents, social media messages, and the like. Moreover, while the examples set forth herein have indicated that the answer is displayed on a display, other approaches for presenting an answer to a user are contemplated. For example, a user can set forth a voice query to a smart speaker, and the smart speaker can audibly return the answer to the user, wherein the answer is constructed by the constructor module 124.
Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B
Use of processors to receive, identifying a search result, constructing an answer would constitute use of a generic computer used as tool to implement the abstract idea discussed above.
The step of receiving data associated with a building constitutes an insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gather, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989);
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 22-34 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because as they depend from independent claims 24, 35. Which is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The additional limitation of claim 23 “identifying several search result, identifying that the search result is amongst a threshold number of most highly ranked search result in the ranked list of search result”, claim 24 “ constructing a first representation of the search result based on a first partitioning rule, constructing a second representation of the search result based on a second partitioning”, claim 25 “partitioning the first and second representations of the search result into first fragments, providing the first fragments and second fragment as input to a first and second deep model”, claim 26 “wherein the first deep and second deep models comprise a first recurrent neural network”, claim 27 “where the first and second instance of the deep models output the score for the instant answer, and where the instant answer is returned”, claim 28 “where the instant answer is returned to the client computing device based further upon the score being higher than a predefined threshold”, claim 29 “where the firs partition rule specifies that headers in the search result are to be included in the first representation of the search result”, claim 30 “where the search result is an email”, claim 31 “where the search result is a word processing document”, claim 32 “where the search result is a webpage, and where the acts further comprise retrieving the webpage from a server computing system”, claims 33, 36 “where returning the instant answer to the client computing device comprises including the instant answer in a search engine results page”, claim 34 “where the search engine result page additionally includes a hyperlink that points to the search result”, claim 37 “where the first row is adjacent to the second row in the table”, claim 38 “generating a first and a second representation of the document that include first and second text, the second text is different from the first text” constitutes insignificant extra solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation is merely a generic implement using a computer and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly claims 21-37, 40 are found to be directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea.
Double Patenting
There is no Terminal Disclaimer filed. Therefore, the examiner respectfully maintained the rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-23, 30-38, and 40 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 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.
Claim(s) 21-24, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nigam et al (U.S. Pub No. 2017/0124101), and in view of Miller et al (U.S. Pub No. 2018/0032570 A1).
As per claim 21,Nigam discloses a computing system comprising:
a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising (Par [0050]):
receiving a query from a client computing device that is in network communication with the computing system (par [0003]) receiving query);
identifying a search result based upon the query, where the search result includes content (Par [0026]);
subsequent to the search result being identified, constructing an instant answer for the query, and further where the entries correspond to the content in the search result; and returning the instant answer to the client computing device for display (Par [0021, 0024, 0028]).
Nigam discloses the instant answer but silence about table. Nigam does not explicitly disclose where the instant answer comprises a table that includes entries; causing the table to be displayed at the client computing device.
However, Miller discloses where the instant answer comprises a table that includes entries; causing the table to be displayed at the client computing device (Par [0171, 0183-0186]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the features as disclosed in Miller into the teaching of Nigam in order to improve time-based searching (par [0136]).
As per claim 22, Miller discloses the computing system of claim 21, where the content includes first text, second text, and third text, where the third text is between the first text and the second text in the content, where the table includes a first entry and a second entry that is immediately adjacent to the first entry, and further where the first entry comprises the first text and the second entry comprises the second text (Par [0198] and figure 9B).
As per claim 23, Miller discloses the computing system of claim 21, the acts further comprising: identifying several search results based upon the query; ranking the search results to form a ranked list of search results; identifying that the search result is amongst a threshold number of most highly ranked search results in the ranked list of search results, where the instant answer is constructed due to the search result being amongst the threshold number of most highly ranked search results in the ranked list of search results (par [0172]).
As per claim 24, Miller discloses the computing system of claim 21, where constructing the instant answer for the query comprises: constructing a first representation of the search result based upon a first partitioning rule, the first partitioning rule specifies first content that is to be included in the first representation of the search result; constructing a second representation of the search result based upon a second partitioning rule, the second partitioning rule specifies second content that is to be included in the second representation of the search result, where the instant answer is constructed based upon one of the first representation of the search result or the second representation of the search result (par [0089]).
As per claim 29, Miller discloses the computing system of claim 24, where the first partition rule specifies that headers in the search result are to be included in the first representation of the search result, and further where the second partition rule specifies that lists in the search result are to be included in the second representation of the search result (Par [0081-0091, 0147-0148]).
Claim(s) 30-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nigam et al (U.S. Pub No. 2017/0124101), and in view of Miller et al (U.S. Pub No. 2018/0032570 A1) and further in view of Rathod (U.S. Pub No. 2018/0246983 A1).
As per claim 30, Nigam and Miller do not explicitly disclose the computing system of claim 21, where the search result is an email.
However, Rathod discloses where the search result is an email (Par [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the features as disclosed in Rathod into the teaching of Nigam as modified by Miller in order to provide various types of action (Par [0027]).
As per claim 31, Rathod discloses the computing system of claim 21, where the search result is a word processing document (Par [0447]).
As per claim 32, Rathod discloses the computing system of claim 21, where the search result is a webpage, and where the acts further comprise retrieving the webpage from a server computing system that hosts the webpage based upon the webpage being identified (Par [0028-0029]).
As per claim 33, Rathod discloses the computing system of claim 21, where returning the instant answer to the client computing device comprises including the instant answer in a search engine results page (SERP) that is transmitted to the client computing device (par [0326-0327]).
As per claim 34, Rathod discloses the computing system of claim 33, where the SERP additionally includes a hyperlink that points to the search result (Par [0326]).
Claim(s) 35, 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis et al (U.S. Pub No. 2006/0152755), and in view of Miller et al (U.S. Pub No. 2018/0032570 A1).
As per claim 35, Curtis discloses a computing system comprising:
a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
obtaining a document that comprises first text and second text; constructing a table based upon the document, (Par [0029, 0041-0042]).
subsequent to constructing the table, receiving a query issued by a user (Par [0008]);
searching an index based upon the query, where the index maps the table to the document, and further where the document is identified based upon the searching of the index (par [0029, 0044]);
returning the table to the user as at least a portion of an instant answer for the query based upon table being mapped to the document in the index (Par [0045, 0048]).
Curtis does not explicitly disclose where the table includes a first row that comprises the first text and a second row that comprises the second text; and returning the table to the user as at least a portion of an instant answer for the query.
However, Miller discloses where the table includes a first row that comprises the first text and a second row that comprises the second text; and returning the table to the user as at least a portion of an instant answer for the query (Par [0171, 083-0186]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the features as disclosed in Miller into the teaching of Curtis in order to improve time-based searching (par [0007]).
As per claim 37, Miller discloses the computing system of claim 35, where the first row is adjacent to the second row in the table, and further where the first text and the second text are separated by third text in the document (Par [0198]).
As per claim 38, Miller discloses the computing system of claim 35, where constructing the table comprises: generating a first representation of the document that includes first text; generating a second representation of the document that includes second text that is different from the first text, where the instant answer is constructed based upon one of the first representation or the second representation (par [0198]).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis et al (U.S. Pub No. 2006/0152755), and Miller et al (U.S. Pub No. 2018/0032570 A1) and further in view of Rathod (U.S. Pub No. 2018/0246983 A1).
As per claim 36, Cutis discloses the computing system of claim 35, and further where returning the table as at least a portion of the instant answer (Par [0045-0048]).
Curtis and Miller do not explicitly disclose where the document is a webpage, and further where returning the table as at least a portion of the instant answer for the query comprises including the instant answer in a search engine results page (SERP) generated by a search engine based upon the query.
However, Rathod discloses where the document is a webpage, and further where returning the table as at least a portion of the instant answer for the query comprises including the instant answer in a search engine results page (SERP) generated by a search engine based upon the query (Par [0326-0327]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the features as disclosed in Rathod into the teaching of Nigam as modified by Miller in order to provide various types of action (Par [0027]).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod (U.S. Pub No. 2018/0246983 A1), in view of Miller et al (U.S. Pub No. 2018/0032570 A1).
As per claim 40, Rathod discloses a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
receiving a query set forth by a user of a client computing device; identifying a webpage based upon the query, where the webpage includes first text and second text; retrieving the webpage from a cache of a search engine upon the webpage being identified (Par [0021, 0028-0029]);
subsequence to retrieving the webpage, constructing an instant answer for the query; returning the instant answer to the client computing device for display to the user (Par [0021, 0028-0029]).
Rathod discloses the webpage includes first text and second text. However, Rathod does not explicitly disclose where the answer for the query comprises a table that includes a first row and a second row, where the first row includes the first text and the second row includes the second text.
Miller discloses where the instant answer for the query comprises a table that includes a first row and a second row, where the first row includes the first text and the second row includes the second text; and causing the table to be displayed at the client computing device (Par [0171, 083-0186]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the features as disclosed in Miller into the teaching of Nigam in order to improve time-based searching (par [0136]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached on 571-270-5626. 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.
May 13, 2026
/THU N NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights