DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Communication received 11/21/2023 for 18563335. Claims 1-20 are 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 .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/11/2025 was filed before the mailing date of a first action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 16, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claims 4, 16, and 19 recite the limitation "the key information" which is unclear if the "key information" refers to the "at least one key information" recited in the instant claim or other key information and has been interpreted as "[[the]] key information".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "a receiving module, configured to receive []", "an acquisition module, configured to acquire []", "a generation module, configured to generate []", and "a loading module, configured to load []" in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification ("the processor 1301 executes the following instructions: receiving []; acquiring []; generating []; and loading []" [Specification, para 00188-00192]) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
As per claim 13, Applicant has provided evidence that the term "computer-readable storage medium" is intended to include non-statutory matter. Applicant describes a computer-readable storage medium as including open ended language ["storage medium can be a volatile or nonvolatile computer-readable storage medium", Specification, para 00217] and thus it is reasonable to interpret it to include all possible media, including non-statutory media. The words "storage" are insufficient to convey only statutory embodiments to one of ordinary skill in the art absent an explicit and deliberate limiting definition or clear differentiation between storage media and transitory media in the disclosure. As such, the claim(s) is/are drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore this/these claim(s) is/are not statutory. Energy is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter. Applicant is advised to insert the phrase "non-transitory" prior to "computer-readable storage medium" to overcome rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14 is directed to a "computer program product" implementing an information display method. The specification discloses that "computer program product can be implemented through a hardware, a software, or their combination" [Specification, para 00219]. The claimed "product" is non-structural per se, and the claims= reasonably reads on the corresponding software portion of the disclosure. Therefore, a reasonable interpretation in light of the specification leads to the conclusion that the claim as a whole is directed to entirely a software embodiment, i.e., encompasses pure software, not a hardware embodiment, which does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Applicant is advised to amend into the claim hardware components to overcome rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astrakhantsev et al. (US 20220277056 A1) in view of French et al. (US 20130325832 A1).
As to claim 1, Astrakhantsev discloses an information display method, comprising:
receiving search information [para 0026, receive user task query];
acquiring at least one target video corresponding to the search information and structured information corresponding to the search information, wherein the structured information provides a key content for answering the search information [para 0027-0028, 0033-0034, generate search results from query including video (read: target video) and structured data including data (read: key content) discussing task query (read: answering search information)];
generating a first search result page and a second search result page, wherein the first search result page is used for displaying the target video, and the second search result page is used for displaying the structured information [para 0048, 0052, 0056, 0085, generate search result webpage (read: first search result page) with cascading waterfall including video and card (read: second search result page) presenting structured data, note broadest reasonable interpretation of page includes any block of information in a page]; and
loading the first search result page and the second search result page [para 0048, 0090, 0095, present search result webpage including waterfall with video and card presenting structured data].
However, Astrakhantsev does not specifically disclose the second search result page being located above the first search result page.
French discloses the second search result page being located above the first search result page [Fig. 2, para 0018, display target web page (read: second search result page) in popup window overlapping search results web page (read: first search result page)].
Astrakhantsev and French are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of search result presentation systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generated second search result page as disclosed by Astrakhantsev with a second search result page located above a first search result page as disclosed by French with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Astrakhantsev as described above to examine search results without reloading [French, para 0018].
As to claim 2, Astrakhantsev discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the loading the first search result page and the second search result page comprises: loading the first search result page; and loading the second search result page … [para 0048, 0090, 0095, present search result webpage including waterfall with video and card presenting structured data].
However, Astrakhantsev does not specifically disclose overlaying the first search result page with a popover, and loading the second search result page on the popover.
French discloses: overlaying the first search result page with a popover, and loading the second search result page on the popover [Fig. 2, para 0018, display target web page in popup window overlapping search results web page].
Astrakhantsev and French are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of search result presentation systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second search result pages as disclosed by Astrakhantsev with the overlaying a first search result page with a popover loaded with a second search result page as disclosed by French with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Astrakhantsev as described above to examine search results without reloading [French, para 0018].
As to claim 3, Astrakhantsev discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the acquiring at least one target video corresponding to the search information and structured information corresponding to the search information comprises:
determining a first search type of the search information [para 0041, determine intent (read: first search type) of search query], and
in a case where the first search type is detected as a target search type, acquiring at least one target video corresponding to the search information and the structured information corresponding to the search information [para 0038-0041, identify webpage including video and structured data as search query result when determining query intent includes a visual intent (read: target search type)].
As to claim 4, Astrakhantsev discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first search result page is displayed through following steps:
determining at least one key information corresponding to the structured information, wherein the key information comprises a data dimension of the structured information, and the data dimension is determined based on a second search type of the search information [para 0022, 0033, 0069, extract meta-information (read: at least one key information) from structured information including option (read: key information) of filter (read: data dimension) for search query results issued to image search (read: second search type)]; and
… displaying the at least one key information on the second search result page [Figs. 4-6A, 8, para 0030, 0069, 0071-0074, 0080, present card with structured data from filtered search result, note Figure 6A shows card including "cal" text consistent with calorie filter selection option].
However, Astrakhantsev does not specifically disclose overlaying a bottom of the first search result page with the second search result page.
French discloses overlaying a bottom of the first search result page with the second search result page [Fig. 2, para 0018, display target web page in popup window overlapping search results web page, note Figure 2 shows popup window overlapping at least a portion of bottom half of search results web page].
Astrakhantsev and French are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of search result presentation systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second search result pages as disclosed by Astrakhantsev with overlaying a first search result page with a second search result page as disclosed by French with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Astrakhantsev as described above to examine search results without reloading [French, para 0018].
As to claim 5, Astrakhantsev discloses the method according to claim 2, further comprising:
in response to a first trigger operation for target key information displayed on the second search result page, determining a target structured content corresponding to the target key information in the structured information [para 0100, determine webpage portion (read: target structured content) if user selects (read: first trigger operation) link (read: target key information) in displayed structured data];
determining a target display position of the target structured content in the second search result page [para 0100, determine where portion is located in structured data webpage]; and
… scrolling the second search result page to the target display position to display the target structured content [para 0100, directly open webpage at webpage portion where structured data is located, where scrolling is performed to arrive at webpage portion].
However, Astrakhantsev does not specifically disclose adjusting a size of the popover.
French discloses adjusting a size of the popover [para 0018, resize popup window].
Astrakhantsev and French are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of search result presentation systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second search result page as disclosed by Astrakhantsev with the adjusting a size of a popover including a search result as disclosed by French with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Astrakhantsev as described above to examine search results without reloading [French, para 0018].
As to claim 7, Astrakhantsev discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first search result page displays the target video through following steps:
determining a category of the target video [para 0028, 0031, determine quality (read: category) of webpage with video]; and
based on the category of the target video, displaying preview information of the target video in at least one column on the first search result page, wherein the category of the target video in each column is the same [Fig. 9, para 0031, 0081, display search results as cascading waterfall with column including distinct video display attributes (read: preview information) indicating webpage video based on quality of webpage, where search results with high quality are included in columns of cascading waterfall search results].
As to claim 9, Astrakhantsev discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
in response to a scroll operation for the second search result page, displaying an organic search result corresponding to the search information after displaying the structured information [Figs. 3, 6A-6B, para 0051, 0053, 0065-0066, 0074, display related content (read: search result) based on selected webpage below (read: after) webpage structured data, where related content includes recommendation (read: organic search result) separate from advertising; note one of ordinary skill would recognize related content as shown in Figure 3 includes partial images revealed by scroll consistent with partial images revealed by scroll of search results in cascading waterfall as shown in Figures 6A and 6B].
As to claim 10, Astrakhantsev discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein the structured information comprises information corresponding to at least one data dimension extracted from a target search result [para 0033, 0069, extract option (read: information) of filter (read: data dimension) from structured information for search query result],
wherein the at least one data dimension is determined based on a second search type of the search information, and the target search result comprises the target video [para 0022, 0038-0041, identify webpage including video and structured data as search query result (read: target search result) when determining query intent includes a visual intent (read: second search type)].
As to claim 11, Astrakhantsev and French, combined at least for the reasons above, Astrakhantsev discloses an information display apparatus, comprising: a receiving module, an acquisition module, a generation module, and a loading module [Fig. 1, para 0025, 0038-0041, 0058, computing device includes processor hardware receiving user query, receiving search results, and presenting search results] configured to perform limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 12, Astrakhantsev and French, combined at least for the reasons above, Astrakhantsev discloses a computer device, comprising a processor, a memory and a bus, wherein the memory stores machine-readable instructions executable by the processor; the processor communicates with the memory through the bus upon a computer device running; and the machine-readable instructions upon being executed by the processor implement an information display method [Fig. 1, para 0025, 0038-0041, 0058, computing device includes processor, communication technology, and memory storing instructions executed by processor], and the method comprises: performing limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 13, Astrakhantsev and French, combined at least for the reasons above, Astrakhantsev discloses a computer-readable storage medium, wherein a computer program is stored on the computer-readable storage medium, and upon the computer program being executed by a processor [Fig. 1, para 0025, 0038-0041, 0057-0058, computing device memory stores instructions executed by computing device processor], the information display method according to claim 1 is implemented [see claim 1].
As to claim 14, Astrakhantsev and French, combined at least for the reasons above, Astrakhantsev discloses a computer program product, wherein the computer program product, upon running on a computer, causes the computer to implement the information display method [Fig. 1, para 0025, 0038-0041, 0057-0058, computing device memory stores instructions executed by computing device processor] according to claim 1 [see claim 1].
As to claim 15, Astrakhantsev discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the first search result page is displayed through following steps: limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 16, Astrakhantsev discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the first search result page is displayed through following steps: limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claims 17-20, Astrakhantsev and French, combined at least for the reasons above, disclose the computer device according to claim 12 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 2-5, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astrakhantsev and French as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ray et al. (US 20110320443 A1).
As to claim 8, Astrakhantsev discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein a plurality of tabs are displayed on the first search result page, and different tabs are used for displaying different types of search results [Figs. 2, 4, 8, para 0062-0063, 0069, 0078-0080, ,display search result webpage with filter options (read: tabs); note the limitation "for displaying different types of search results" is not being given patentable weight as the term "for" suggests or makes optional and does not require the step to be performed as the limitation is an intended result of the "different tabs" as recited in the claim (see MPEP 2111.04), nevertheless note selecting filter option displays only webpage results associated with selected filter]; and
the method further comprises:
in response to a second trigger operation for a first target button of the first search result page [Figs. 2, 4, 8, para 0063, 0069, 0079-0080, user selecting (read: second trigger operation) filter option (read: first target button) presented on search result webpage],
controlling the first search result page to switch from a current tab to a [] tab [para 0069, 0079-0080, display webpage with no selected filters (read: current tab) to selected filter option (read: tab), note broadest reasonable interpretation of tab includes a software interface to create different working display areas], and
displaying a search result video under the [] tab, wherein the first target button is used for viewing a complete search result video [Figs. 2, 4, 8, para 0052, 0063, 0069, 0079-0080, selecting filter option displays only search results associated with selected filter option including webpage with video (read: search result video); note the limitation "for viewing a complete search result video" is not being given patentable weight as the term "for" suggests or makes optional and does not require the step to be performed as the limitation is an intended result of the "first target button" as recited in the claim, nevertheless, note selecting webpage result with video starts playing webpage video].
However, Astrakhantsev and French do not specifically disclose wherein "a [] tab" is "a video tab".
Ray discloses a video tab [Fig. 6, para 0045, 0047, search result page includes tabs links to video search results].
Astrakhantsev, French, and Ray are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of search result presentation systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tab as disclosed by Astrakhantsev and French with a video tab as disclosed by Ray with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Astrakhantsev and French as described above to maximize search results effectiveness [Ray, para 0045].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin et al. (US 20230252103 A1) generally discloses displaying structured information with search query results.
Liu et al. (US 20190370305 A1) generally discloses determining key information comprising data dimensions corresponding to structured information corresponding to search information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5240 and email is linda.huynh@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 9am-5pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/LINDA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172