DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10-21 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of an extraneous “se” after the first and. Appropriate correction is required.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following are prior art references made of record but not currently relied upon:
20140372421
Par. 22
“the input to determining the optimal zoom level is the search results, including the geolocation for each item in the results… the optimal zoom level should be… large enough to show both this item and the first item or preceding items on the map at the same time…”
20060206264
Pars. 38, 41, 67-68
Real time modification of map based on visual scale changes
20050080786
Pars. 4-8
Searching for medical doctors who are in the same city or the cities nearby.
20090292555
Pars. 26, 33, 38
View doctor, provider, specialist search results on a map
20200388402
Par. 77
Clinical provider search system filters and displays select provider locations on a map within a select radius
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 1-8, 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holcomb et al., Pub. No.: US 20130232006 A1, hereinafter Holcomb, in view of J. Bach, Pub. No.: US 20140280039 A1, hereinafter Bach.
As per claim 1, Holcomb discloses A computer-implemented method, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a user interface request that comprises (i) character-level text input related to a search query via a user interface of a user device and (ii) filter metadata for a user identifier associated with the user interface request (see multiple examples of this limitation including receiving a textual inputted query from a user along with location filtering information for the user’s location, a destination, a configurable number of POIs, along with other user selected filters, as disclosed in at least pars. 77, 86, 94, 142, 161, 236, 262-274, 332-334, 355, 362, 441, 442, 447 and fig.’s 4, 7-10);
generating, by the one or more processors, a set of query result data objects for the user interface request by correlating the character-level text input to at least one domain knowledge profile (see above cited pars. including at least pars. 328-332, 341 which disclose obtaining results about a category-based entity having attributes/features (which is what a domain knowledge profile is as described in par. 149 of the instant specification), using the user’s query);
generating, by the one or more processors, a set of filtered query result data objects for the user interface request by filtering the set of query result data objects using the filter metadata (see above cited pars. including at least pars. 332, 353-355 wherein returned results are further filtered using filtering metadata such as at least the received location filtering information and/or the top (configured) number of search results); and
Holcomb does not expressly disclose, however in view Bach, the combination discloses:
in response to a user input for the search query: (i) initiating, by the one or more processors, a modification to a visual scale associated with real-time map visualization of the user interface based on a distance between respective map locations for selectable graphical element options indicative of the set of filtered query result data objects and (ii) asynchronously presenting, by the one or more processors, respective selectable graphical element options of the selectable graphical element options via the user interface. (see Holcomb as cited above for search query inputs; see Bach pars. 13, 25, 26 for character-by-character query input analysis (i.e. in response to a user input for the search query) that results in display of narrowed search results (i.e. graphical element options indicative of the set of filtered query result data objects) “while the user is typing or providing other inputs to the search query. The search results may be displayed substantially at the same time as the inputs to the search query are provided.” Bach, par. 13. This corresponds to the claimed (ii) asynchronously presenting limitation, and also to pars. 151 and 154 of the instant specification which include “the set of selectable graphical element options … may be presented asynchronously when user typing or speaking stops via a search query input” and “within 40 milliseconds or approximately 40 milliseconds”. Additionally, the first 2 sentences of Bach, par. 14 make it clear that as inputs to the query are provided, the map rotates, pans, zooms in order to provide an optimal visual representation of the search results based on their defining factors including latitude and longitude (i.e. a modification to a visual scale associated with real-time map visualization of the user interface based on a distance between respective map locations). See also, Bach, claims 1, 9 and pars. 36-40).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Bach would have allowed Holcomb’s POI/address search system to display a map that autonomously zooms, translates and scales, in real time dynamic manner in response to inputs to a search query which results in a visual scale modification, in order to provide an optimal visual representation of multiple POI’s within the map based on at least latitude and longitude distances between them.
As per claim 2, Holcomb as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the filter metadata comprises user location data associated with the user device, and wherein generating the set of query result data objects comprises: filtering the set of query result data objects based on the user location data to generate the set of filtered query result data objects (Holcomb pars. 332, 345, 351, 94; see also, Bach as cited in the rejection of claim 1).
As per claim 3, Holcomb as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the user location data is based on location text input (see rejection of receiving limitation of claim 1).
As per claim 4, Holcomb as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the user location data comprises a real-time location approximation associated with the user device (see rejection of receiving limitation of claim 1 including Holcomb pars. 120, 159, 366, 416).
As per claim 5, Holcomb as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the user location data comprises a geofence location associated with the user device (see rejection of receiving limitation of claim 1 including Holcomb pars. 330-332, 367).
As per claim 6, Holcomb as modified discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the filter metadata comprises a set of user requested filters selected via the user interface, and wherein filtering the set of query result data objects comprises: filtering the set of query result data objects based on the set of user requested filters to generate the set of filtered query result data objects (see rejection of receiving limitation of claim 1 including Holcomb pars. 236, 332-334, 355, 362, 492; see also, Bach as cited in the rejection of claim 1).
As per claim 7, Holcomb as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the filter metadata comprises (a) user location data associated with the user device and (b) a set of user requested filters selected via the user interface, and wherein filtering the set of query result data objects comprises: filtering the set of query result data objects based on (a) the user location data and (b) the set of user requested filters to generate the set of filtered query result data objects (see rejection of claim 6 and receiving limitation of claim 1).
As per claim 8, Holcomb as modified discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to receiving a user interface interaction associated with the set of selectable graphical element options, initiating a rendering of visual data indicative of at least one of a distance or time between a real-time location of the user device and a map location associated with a respective selectable graphical element option (Holcomb fig. 2, pars. 88, 332 and see Bach as cited above in claim 1).
As per claim 10, Holcomb as modified discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the user interface request is a first user interface request, the character-level text input is first character-level text input of the search query, and wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises: receiving, via the user interface, a second user interface request that comprises (a) second character-level text input related to the search query and (Holcomb fig. 2, wherein search text box remains above the map at all times; see also, Bach as cited in the rejection of claim 1)(b) map location data associated with a user interaction with respect to the real-time map visualization (Holcomb fig. 2, wherein search text box remains above the map at all times, including before/after location-based interactions with existing map such as zooming, follow-me, POI clicks, etc. ; see also, Bach as cited in the rejection of claim 1); generating an updated set of query result data objects based on the second character-level text input (Holcomb fig. 2, wherein search text box remains above the map at all times to receive and render new map based search results; see also, Bach as cited in the rejection of claim 1); and initiating, via the user interface of the user device, a rendering of an updated set of selectable graphical element options based on the updated set of query result data objects (see mapping above and rejection of claim 1 including Bach as cited in the rejection of claim 1).
As per claims 11-21, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected. See Holcomb fig.’s 1-6 for the system and non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claims 11 and 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 March 2026 have been fully considered; Bach has been introduced to address the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boris Gorney can be reached at (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.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights