DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication filed on November 28, 2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/2325 and 08/25/25 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes the phrase “Fig. 2” in a separate paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1:
Independent claims 1, 10, and 16 respectively recite a method, an electronic device, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which are directed to a statutory category such as a process, machine, or an article of manufacture.
At step 2A, prong one:
Independent claim 1 and similarly independent claims 10 and 16 recites the limitations:
“determining a sequence of screening items obtained after mixing and sorting the plurality of recommended search terms and vertical category tags”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper determine a sequence of screening items obtained after mentally or using a pen and paper mixing and sorting a plurality of recommended search terms and vertical category tags.
The limitations, as recited above, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover steps that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, but for recitation of generic computer components.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 and similarly independent claims 10 and 16 recites the limitations:
“in response to receiving search information, acquiring a plurality of recommended search terms matched with the search information”, which is a step of acquiring or retrieving data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
“presenting the sequence of screening items obtained after the mixing and sorting in a navigation bar of a search page”, which is a step of presenting data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional elements “a method for presenting search screening items, comprising:” and “in a navigation bar of a search page” in the steps in claim 1 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The additional elements “an electronic device, comprising: a processor, a memory, and a bus, wherein the memory stores machine-readable instructions executable by the processor, the processor and the memory communicate via the bus when the electronic device runs, and the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the following operations for presenting search screening items:” and “in a navigation bar of a search page” in the steps in claim 10 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The additional elements “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing thereon a computer program which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the following operations for presenting search screening items:” and “in a navigation bar of a search page” in the steps in claim 16 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
At step 2B:
Independent claims 1, 10, and 16 recite the same additional elements as identified in step 2A prong two above. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 and similarly independent claims 10 and 16 recites the limitations:
“in response to receiving search information, acquiring a plurality of recommended search terms matched with the search information”, which is a step of acquiring or retrieving data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
“presenting the sequence of screening items obtained after the mixing and sorting in a navigation bar of a search page”, which is a step of presenting data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, the additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 and similarly dependent claims 11 and 17 recites additional limitations, such as:
wherein the determining a sequence of screening items obtained after mixing and sorting the plurality of recommended search terms and vertical category tags comprises:
“determining an association relation between each of the recommended search terms and each of the vertical category tags, based on consumption data of multimedia content corresponding to each of the recommended search terms under each of the vertical category tags”;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 1, 10, and 16, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper determine an association relation between each of recommended search terms and each of vertical category tags, based on consumption data of multimedia content corresponding to each of the recommended search terms under each of the vertical category tags, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“determining the sequence of screening items obtained after mixing and sorting the plurality of recommended search terms and vertical category tags in accordance with the determined association relation”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 1, 10, and 16, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper determine a sequence of screening items obtained after mixing and sorting a plurality of recommended search terms and vertical category tags in accordance with a determined association relation, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 and similarly dependent claims 12 and 18 recites additional limitations, such as:
wherein the sequence of screening items is generated in accordance with the following steps of:
“determining a priority order of the vertical category tags based on the search information”;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 1, 10, and 16, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper determine a priority order of vertical category tags based on a search information, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“determining a plurality of prepositive vertical category tags from the vertical category tags in accordance with the priority order”;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 1, 10, and 16, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper determine a plurality of prepositive vertical category tags from vertical category tags in accordance with a priority order, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“taking what is resulted after mixing and sorting the plurality of prepositive vertical category tags and the plurality of recommended search terms as prepositive screening items of the sequence of screening items, and taking the vertical category tags other than the prepositive vertical category tags among the vertical category tags as postpositive screening items of the sequence of screening items”;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 1, 10, and 16, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper take what is resulted after mixing and sorting a plurality of prepositive vertical category tags and a plurality of recommended search terms as prepositive screening items of a sequence of screening items, and the person can mentally or using a pen and paper take vertical category tags other than prepositive vertical category tags among the vertical category tags as postpositive screening items of a sequence of screening items, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“wherein the prepositive screening items are used for being arranged before the postpositive screening items”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 1, 10, and 16, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper use prepositive screening items for arrangement before using postpositive screening items, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 and similarly dependent claims 13 and 19 recites additional limitation, such as:
wherein the determining a priority order of the vertical category tags based on the search information comprises:
“determining the priority order of the vertical category tags based on consumption data of multimedia content under a search category to which the search information belongs”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 1, 10, and 16, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper determine a priority order of vertical category tags based on consumption data of multimedia content under a search category to which a search information belongs, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 and similarly dependent claims 14 and 20 recites additional limitations, such as:
wherein the determining a plurality of prepositive vertical category tags from the vertical category tags in accordance with the priority order comprises:
“selecting a first number of first vertical category tags which are top-ranked, in an order from high to low of the priority order”;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 1, 10, and 16, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper select a first number of first vertical category tags which are top-ranked, in an order from high to low of the priority order, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“performing a union process on the first number of first vertical category tags and a plurality of preset second vertical category tags, and taking the vertical category tags in the resulted union as the plurality of prepositive vertical category tags”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 1, 10, and 16, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper perform a union process on a first number of first vertical category tags and a plurality of preset second vertical category tags, and the person can mentally or using a pen and paper take the vertical category tags in the resulted union as a plurality of prepositive vertical category tags, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 and similarly dependent claim 15 recites additional limitation, such as:
wherein the taking what is resulted after mixing and sorting the plurality of prepositive vertical category tags and the plurality of recommended search terms as prepositive screening items of the sequence of screening items comprises:
“in the case where the number of the recommended search terms is greater than a second number, selecting the second number of recommended search terms from the plurality of recommended search terms, in accordance with degree of correlation between the plurality of recommended search terms and the search information and/or consumption data of multimedia content corresponding to the plurality of recommended search terms”;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 1 and 10, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper select a second number of recommended search terms from a plurality of recommended search terms, in a case where a number of the recommended search terms is greater than the second number, in accordance with degree of correlation between the plurality of recommended search terms and search information and/or consumption data of multimedia content corresponding to the plurality of recommended search terms, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“taking what is resulted after mixing and sorting the plurality of prepositive vertical category tags and the second number of recommended search terms as the prepositive screening items of the sequence of screening items”;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 1 and 10, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper take what is resulted after mixing and sorting a plurality of prepositive vertical category tags and a second number of recommended search terms as a prepositive screening items of a sequence of screening items, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“the taking vertical category tags other than the prepositive vertical category tags among the vertical category tags as postpositive screening items of the sequence of screening items comprises:
taking the vertical category tags other than the prepositive vertical category tags, as well as the recommended search terms other than the second number of recommended search terms among the plurality of recommended search terms, as the postpositive screening items of the sequence of screening items”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 1 and 10, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper take vertical category tags other than prepositive vertical category tags among vertical category tags as postpositive screening items of a sequence of screening items by mentally or using a pen and paper taking the vertical category tags other than the prepositive vertical category tags, as well as recommended search terms other than a second number of recommended search terms among a plurality of recommended search terms, as the postpositive screening items of the sequence of screening items, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 recites additional limitations, such as:
wherein prior to mixing and sorting the plurality of recommended search terms and vertical category tags, the method further comprises:
“performing a semantic match on the plurality of recommended search terms and the vertical category tags, and determining whether there is a recommended search term which is semantically matched with the vertical category tag among the plurality of recommended search terms”;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper perform a semantic match on a plurality of recommended search terms and vertical category tags to mentally or using a pen and paper determine whether there is a recommended search term which is semantically matched with the vertical category tag among the plurality of recommended search terms, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“if yes, deleting the recommended search term which is semantically matched with the vertical category tag”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper delete a recommended search term which is semantically matched with a vertical category tag based on a determination, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8 recites additional limitations, such as:
wherein subsequent to presenting the sequence of screening items obtained after the mixing and sorting, the method further comprises:
“adjusting the order of respective screening items in the sequence of screening items in accordance with trigger operation data for the respective screening items in the sequence of screening items”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper adjust an order of respective screening items in a sequence of screening items in accordance with trigger operation data for respective screening items in the sequence of screening items, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 recites additional limitations, such as:
wherein subsequent to presenting the sequence of screening items obtained after the mixing and sorting, the method further comprises:
“in response to a trigger operation for a target vertical category tag in the sequence of screening items, setting the target vertical category tag to be in a selected state, and presenting respective search results under the target vertical category tag for the search information; and/or
in response to a trigger operation for a recommended search term in the sequence of screening items, setting a comprehensive tag in the search page to be in a selected state, and presenting respective search results matched with the search information and the recommended search term”, which are steps for presenting data.
At step 2A prong two, the step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
At step 2B, the step is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are also directed to abstract idea without significantly more and are not patent eligible.
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) 1-6 and 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US Pub 2022/0075513) in view of Katardjiev (US Pub 2019/0087435).
With respect to claim 1, Walker discloses a method for presenting search screening items, comprising:
in response to receiving search information, acquiring a plurality of recommended search terms matched with the search information (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags);
determining a sequence of screening items obtained after…the plurality of recommended search terms and vertical category tags (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; here Walker does not explicitly disclose mixing and sorting, but the Katardjiev reference discloses the feature, as discussed below); and
presenting the sequence of screening items obtained after the mixing and sorting in a navigation bar of a search page (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented on a search page with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can navigate and select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags, which is interpreted as a navigation bar of a search page; here Walker does not explicitly disclose mixing and sorting, but the Katardjiev reference discloses the feature, as discussed below).
Walker discloses determining a sequence of screening items obtained after a search term is input in a search bar, which includes a plurality of recommended search terms or keywords and tags, however, Walker does not explicitly disclose:
…mixing and sorting…;
The Katardjiev reference discloses mixing and sorting (Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Walker and Katardjiev, to have combined Walker and Katardjiev. The motivation to combine Walker and Katardjiev would be to provide a user with a more relevant set of recommendations by implementing a tag-based user directed recommendation scheme (Katardjiev: [0001] and [0010]).
With respect to claim 2, Walker in view of Katardjiev discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining a sequence of screening items obtained after mixing and sorting the plurality of recommended search terms and vertical category tags comprises:
determining an association relation between each of the recommended search terms and each of the vertical category tags, based on consumption data of multimedia content corresponding to each of the recommended search terms under each of the vertical category tags (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method); and
determining the sequence of screening items obtained after mixing and sorting the plurality of recommended search terms and vertical category tags in accordance with the determined association relation (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
With respect to claim 3, Walker in view of Katardjiev discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the sequence of screening items is generated in accordance with the following steps of:
determining a priority order of the vertical category tags based on the search information; determining a plurality of prepositive vertical category tags from the vertical category tags in accordance with the priority order (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method); and
taking what is resulted after mixing and sorting the plurality of prepositive vertical category tags and the plurality of recommended search terms as prepositive screening items of the sequence of screening items, and taking the vertical category tags other than the prepositive vertical category tags among the vertical category tags as postpositive screening items of the sequence of screening items (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method);
wherein the prepositive screening items are used for being arranged before the postpositive screening items (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
With respect to claim 4, Walker in view of Katardjiev discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the determining a priority order of the vertical category tags based on the search information comprises:
determining the priority order of the vertical category tags based on consumption data of multimedia content under a search category to which the search information belongs (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
With respect to claim 5, Walker in view of Katardjiev discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the determining a plurality of prepositive vertical category tags from the vertical category tags in accordance with the priority order comprises:
selecting a first number of first vertical category tags which are top-ranked, in an order from high to low of the priority order (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method); and
performing a union process on the first number of first vertical category tags and a plurality of preset second vertical category tags, and taking the vertical category tags in the resulted union as the plurality of prepositive vertical category tags (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
With respect to claim 6, Walker in view of Katardjiev discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the taking what is resulted after mixing and sorting the plurality of prepositive vertical category tags and the plurality of recommended search terms as prepositive screening items of the sequence of screening items comprises:
in the case where the number of the recommended search terms is greater than a second number, selecting the second number of recommended search terms from the plurality of recommended search terms, in accordance with degree of correlation between the plurality of recommended search terms and the search information and/or consumption data of multimedia content corresponding to the plurality of recommended search terms (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method); and
taking what is resulted after mixing and sorting the plurality of prepositive vertical category tags and the second number of recommended search terms as the prepositive screening items of the sequence of screening items (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method); and
the taking vertical category tags other than the prepositive vertical category tags among the vertical category tags as postpositive screening items of the sequence of screening items comprises:
taking the vertical category tags other than the prepositive vertical category tags, as well as the recommended search terms other than the second number of recommended search terms among the plurality of recommended search terms, as the postpositive screening items of the sequence of screening items (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
With respect to claim 8, Walker in view of Katardjiev discloses the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein subsequent to presenting the sequence of screening items obtained after the mixing and sorting, the method further comprises:
adjusting the order of respective screening items in the sequence of screening items in accordance with trigger operation data for the respective screening items in the sequence of screening items (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
With respect to claim 9, Walker in view of Katardjiev discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein subsequent to presenting the sequence of screening items obtained after the mixing and sorting, the method further comprises:
in response to a trigger operation for a target vertical category tag in the sequence of screening items, setting the target vertical category tag to be in a selected state, and presenting respective search results under the target vertical category tag for the search information (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method); and/or
in response to a trigger operation for a recommended search term in the sequence of screening items, setting a comprehensive tag in the search page to be in a selected state, and presenting respective search results matched with the search information and the recommended search term (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
With respect to claim 10, Walker discloses an electronic device, comprising: a processor, a memory, and a bus, wherein the memory stores machine-readable instructions executable by the processor, the processor and the memory communicate via the bus when the electronic device runs, and the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the following operations (Walker in [0161], [0182], and [0183] discloses device comprising processor, memory, and a bus, memory storing instructions executed by the processor, memory communicating with bus) for presenting search screening items:
in response to receiving search information, acquiring a plurality of recommended search terms matched with the search information (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags);
determining a sequence of screening items obtained after…the plurality of recommended search terms and vertical category tags (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; here Walker does not explicitly disclose mixing and sorting, but the Katardjiev reference discloses the feature, as discussed below); and
presenting the sequence of screening items obtained after the mixing and sorting in a navigation bar of a search page (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented on a search page with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can navigate and select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags, which is interpreted as a navigation bar of a search page; here Walker does not explicitly disclose mixing and sorting, but the Katardjiev reference discloses the feature, as discussed below).
Walker discloses determining a sequence of screening items obtained after a search term is input in a search bar, which includes a plurality of recommended search terms or keywords and tags, however, Walker does not explicitly disclose:
…mixing and sorting…;
The Katardjiev reference discloses mixing and sorting (Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Walker and Katardjiev, to have combined Walker and Katardjiev. The motivation to combine Walker and Katardjiev would be to provide a user with a more relevant set of recommendations by implementing a tag-based user directed recommendation scheme (Katardjiev: [0001] and [0010]).
With respect to claim 11, Walker in view of Katardjiev discloses the electronic device according to claim 10, wherein the determining a sequence of screening items obtained after mixing and sorting the plurality of recommended search terms and vertical category tags comprises:
determining an association relation between each of the recommended search terms and each of the vertical category tags, based on consumption data of multimedia content corresponding to each of the recommended search terms under each of the vertical category tags (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method); and
determining the sequence of screening items obtained after mixing and sorting the plurality of recommended search terms and vertical category tags in accordance with the determined association relation (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
With respect to claim 12, Walker in view of Katardjiev discloses the electronic device according to claim 10, wherein the sequence of screening items is generated in accordance with the following operations of:
determining a priority order of the vertical category tags based on the search information (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method);
determining a plurality of prepositive vertical category tags from the vertical category tags in accordance with the priority order (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method); and
taking what is resulted after mixing and sorting the plurality of prepositive vertical category tags and the plurality of recommended search terms as prepositive screening items of the sequence of screening items, and taking the vertical category tags other than the prepositive vertical category tags among the vertical category tags as postpositive screening items of the sequence of screening items (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method);
wherein the prepositive screening items are used for being arranged before the postpositive screening items (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
With respect to claim 13, Walker in view of Katardjiev discloses the electronic device according to claim 12, wherein the determining a priority order of the vertical category tags based on the search information comprises:
determining the priority order of the vertical category tags based on consumption data of multimedia content under a search category to which the search information belongs (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
With respect to claim 14, Walker in view of Katardjiev discloses the electronic device according to claim 12, wherein the determining a plurality of prepositive vertical category tags from the vertical category tags in accordance with the priority order comprises:
selecting a first number of first vertical category tags which are top-ranked, in an order from high to low of the priority order (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method); and
performing a union process on the first number of first vertical category tags and a plurality of preset second vertical category tags, and taking the vertical category tags in the resulted union as the plurality of prepositive vertical category tags (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
With respect to claim 15, Walker in view of Katardjiev discloses the electronic device according to claim 12, wherein the taking what is resulted after mixing and sorting the plurality of prepositive vertical category tags and the plurality of recommended search terms as prepositive screening items of the sequence of screening items comprises:
in the case where the number of the recommended search terms is greater than a second number, selecting the second number of recommended search terms from the plurality of recommended search terms, in accordance with degree of correlation between the plurality of recommended search terms and the search information and/or consumption data of multimedia content corresponding to the plurality of recommended search terms (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method); and
taking what is resulted after mixing and sorting the plurality of prepositive vertical category tags and the second number of recommended search terms as the prepositive screening items of the sequence of screening items (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method); and
the taking vertical category tags other than the prepositive vertical category tags among the vertical category tags as postpositive screening items of the sequence of screening items comprises:
taking the vertical category tags other than the prepositive vertical category tags, as well as the recommended search terms other than the second number of recommended search terms among the plurality of recommended search terms, as the postpositive screening items of the sequence of screening items (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
With respect to claim 16, Walker discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing thereon a computer program which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the following operations (Walker in [0161] and [0183] discloses computer readable media storing instructions executed by a processor) for presenting search screening items:
in response to receiving search information, acquiring a plurality of recommended search terms matched with the search information (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags);
determining a sequence of screening items obtained after…the plurality of recommended search terms and vertical category tags (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; here Walker does not explicitly disclose mixing and sorting, but the Katardjiev reference discloses the feature, as discussed below); and
presenting the sequence of screening items obtained after the mixing and sorting in a navigation bar of a search page (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented on a search page with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can navigate and select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags, which is interpreted as a navigation bar of a search page; here Walker does not explicitly disclose mixing and sorting, but the Katardjiev reference discloses the feature, as discussed below).
Walker discloses determining a sequence of screening items obtained after a search term is input in a search bar, which includes a plurality of recommended search terms or keywords and tags, however, Walker does not explicitly disclose:
…mixing and sorting…;
The Katardjiev reference discloses mixing and sorting (Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Walker and Katardjiev, to have combined Walker and Katardjiev. The motivation to combine Walker and Katardjiev would be to provide a user with a more relevant set of recommendations by implementing a tag-based user directed recommendation scheme (Katardjiev: [0001] and [0010]).
With respect to claim 17, Walker in view of Katardjiev discloses the computer-readable storage medium according to claim 16, wherein the determining a sequence of screening items obtained after mixing and sorting the plurality of recommended search terms and vertical category tags comprises:
determining an association relation between each of the recommended search terms and each of the vertical category tags, based on consumption data of multimedia content corresponding to each of the recommended search terms under each of the vertical category tags (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method); and
determining the sequence of screening items obtained after mixing and sorting the plurality of recommended search terms and vertical category tags in accordance with the determined association relation (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
With respect to claim 18, Walker in view of Katardjiev discloses the computer-readable storage medium according to claim 16, wherein the sequence of screening items is generated in accordance with the following operations of:
determining a priority order of the vertical category tags based on the search information (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method);
determining a plurality of prepositive vertical category tags from the vertical category tags in accordance with the priority order (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method); and
taking what is resulted after mixing and sorting the plurality of prepositive vertical category tags and the plurality of recommended search terms as prepositive screening items of the sequence of screening items, and taking the vertical category tags other than the prepositive vertical category tags among the vertical category tags as postpositive screening items of the sequence of screening items (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method);
wherein the prepositive screening items are used for being arranged before the postpositive screening items (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
With respect to claim 19, Walker in view of Katardjiev discloses the computer-readable storage medium according to claim 18, wherein the determining a priority order of the vertical category tags based on the search information comprises:
determining the priority order of the vertical category tags based on consumption data of multimedia content under a search category to which the search information belongs (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
With respect to claim 20, Walker in view of Katardjiev discloses the computer-readable storage medium according to claim 18, wherein the determining a plurality of prepositive vertical category tags from the vertical category tags in accordance with the priority order comprises:
selecting a first number of first vertical category tags which are top-ranked, in an order from high to low of the priority order (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method); and
performing a union process on the first number of first vertical category tags and a plurality of preset second vertical category tags, and taking the vertical category tags in the resulted union as the plurality of prepositive vertical category tags (Walker in [0150] and [0159] and in Figures 6C and 7 discloses receiving a search information in a search bar and generating a pop-up presented with keyword suggestions, keyword suggestions including separate clusters, presenting a cluster of most frequent keywords and/or extracted metadata tags and cluster of most frequent tags, any suitable metric can be used to identify top keywords or metadata tags, user can select one of the suggestions to execute a search of the selected keyword or tags; Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US Pub 2022/0075513) in view of Katardjiev (US Pub 2019/0087435) and in further view of Bagwell (US Pub 2016/0012019).
With respect to claim 7, Walker in view of Katardjiev discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein prior to mixing and sorting the plurality of recommended search terms and vertical category tags, the method further comprises:
performing a…match on the plurality of recommended search terms and the vertical category tags, and determining whether there is a recommended search term which is…matched with the vertical category tag among the plurality of recommended search terms (Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method; here Walker and Katardjiev do not explicitly disclose performing a semantic match, but the Bagwell reference discloses the features, as discussed below); and
if yes, deleting the recommended search term which is…matched with the vertical category tag (Katardjiev in [0011] and [0012] discloses obtaining recommendations, correlate the recommendations with tags, correlate the representative items with the tags, sorting the tags, provide the recommendations and tags; Katardjiev in [0053] and [0054] discloses displaying recommendation list including recommended items and tag list including tags, each tag has associated therewith a number of representative items from user’s viewing, watching or other history, tag engine queries the user’s activity database and includes items, tag engine sorts and ranks to recommendations in the list based on a recommended order, likelihood of watching, or activity date; Katardjiev in [0052] and [0088] discloses removing any recommended items that contain tags specified in an excluded list, correlate and update based on inclusion and exclusion lists; Katardjiev in [0055] and [0083] and in Figures 6A and 6B discloses tag engine returns both the recommendations list including the recommended items and the tag list, displaying a row of recommendations and a list of tags, which can be adjusted based on user criteria; Katardjiev in [0080] and [0082] discloses assigning importance to all or some of the tags by giving them a value or sorting them in order of most to least important, or by using a ranking method).
Katardjiev discloses performing a match of recommended items or tags with an exclusion and/or inclusion list and deleting based on the match, however, Walker and Katardjiev do not explicitly disclose:
performing a semantic match…which is semantically matched with the…tag;
The Bagwell reference discloses performing a semantic match which is semantically matched with the tag (Bagwell in [0055], [0070], and [0074] discloses suppressing or ignoring duplicate or near duplicate tags corresponding to the same document, merge or combine duplicate tags or near duplicate tags with similar semantic meaning, determine calculated semantic distance between existing tags and new tag based on a distance threshold, merge, filter, suppress, delete, or ignore the selected new tag based on calculated semantic distance, semantic distance calculated based on closest matching tag subject matter topic).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Walker, Katardjiev, and Bagwell, to have combined Walker, Katardjiev, and Bagwell. The motivation to combine Walker, Katardjiev, and Bagwell would be to suppress or ignore duplicate or near duplicate keywords by identifying keyword strings with similar semantic meaning (Bagwell: [0055] and [0057]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REZWANUL MAHMOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-5625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
/R.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2159 /ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159