DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202110875449.2, filed on 7/30/2021.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/14/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-12 and 14-22 are currently pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11-12, 14-16 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchisio et al. (US PGPUB No. 2004/0221235; Pub. Date: Nov. 4, 2004) in view of Bromm et al. (US PGPUB No. 2007/0088687; Pub. Date: Apr./ 19, 2007), ESINOVSKAYA et al. (US PGPUB No. 2017/0329490; Pub. Date: Nov. 16, 2017) and WEATHERFORD (US PGPUB No. 2014/0172562; Pub. Date: Jun. 19, 2014).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Marchisio discloses a method for showing search results, comprises: receiving a search word, wherein the search word corresponds to a plurality of search intents, the plurality of search intents comprise a polysemous term search intent, See Paragraph [0142], (Disclosing a system for syntactically indexing and searching datasets to achieve more accurate search results. The system may employ a second method comprising weighing parameter strings according to the polysemy of each parameter.) See Paragraph [0140], (Parameter strings are generated based on components of a natural language search query using an Enhanced Natural Language Parser performing a "construct_output_string" routine, i.e. receiving a search word (e.g. terms of the natural language query), wherein the search word corresponds to a plurality of search intents, the plurality of search intents comprise a polysemous term search intent.)
and the polysemous term search intent indicates a search intent corresponding to each semantic item when the search word comprises a plurality of semantic items; See Paragraph [0142], (Polysemy values may be obtained from a dictionary service to determine the number of meanings that a term has.) See FIG. 1 & [0065] FIG. 1 illustrates a search interface having query box 102 wherein users may provide a natural language query comprising human-readable text terms. An example query is provided "Does Argentina import or export gas", i.e. the polysemous term search intent indicates a search intent corresponding to each semantic item when the search word comprises a plurality of semantic items.)
obtaining keywords indicating the respective search intents corresponding to the respective semantic items and search results corresponding to the respective keywords, See Paragraphs [0057]-[0058], (The Syntactic Query Engine (SQE) parses, indexes and stores a dataset while also processing queries submitted against said dataset. The SQE locates terms in the data set that have similar grammatical roles to the grammatical roles of similar terms in the original query, i.e. obtaining keywords indicating the respective search intents corresponding to the respective semantic items and search results corresponding to the respective keywords.)
wherein the respective keywords are required by performing search intent analysis on the search word and search results corresponding to the search word; See FIG. 37 & [0142]-[0143], (FIG. 37 illustrates a method of constructing an output string used to generate SQL queries which comprises a sentence formed of parameter words which are determined from verbs. Verbs are determined according to an output string representing parameters indicating polysemy values for each parameter of the parameter string, i.e. wherein the respective keywords are required by performing search intent analysis on the search word and search results corresponding to the search word.)
Paragraph [0047] of Applicant's Specification defines a search intent as referring to the most important goal that the user wants to achieve when the search engine is searching and represents a search goal(s) that can be covered by the search word. The method of Marchisio is configured to analyze the polysemy of user-provided natural language terms and utilize the collected polysemy values to determine which terms are most apt to return pertinent results to the user's natural language query, i.e. a user goal with regards to the natural language queries that users provide to the user interface in order to retrieve content.
Marchisio does not disclose the step of generating a first search result page and a second search result page;
wherein, the first search result page is configured to show the respective keywords, and the second search result page is configured to show the search results corresponding to the respective keywords;
and wherein, the keywords are configured to filter the search results corresponding to the respective keywords;
showing the second search result page comprising a category title,
wherein the respective keywords are shown on the first search result page in a distinguishable display style;
and wherein, the display style of any one of the keywords is determined based on a relevance of the corresponding keyword to the search word and/or a click-through rate of the keyword,
and wherein the display style comprises at least two of a font size, a color, a display position, and a showing area of the search results.
Bromm discloses the step of generating a first search result page and a second search result page; See FIG. 3 & Paragraph [0036], (Disclosing a messaging interface configured to identify and display keywords or other search criteria to a user within the messaging interface. The graphical user interface comprises a search pane including search results section 190 and keyword section 180, i.e. generating a first search result page (e.g. the keyword section) and a second search result page (e.g. search results pane).)
wherein, the first search result page is configured to show the respective keywords, and the second search result page is configured to show the search results corresponding to the respective keywords; See FIG. 3 & Paragraph [0036], (Keyword section 180 illustrates bolded, italicized, underlined keywords that may be used to perform subsequent searches, i.e. wherein, the first search result page is configured to show the respective keywords. The search pane includes search results section 190 that may include a title of a target site and search result content such as descriptions and links to retrieved content, i.e. the second search result page is configured to show the search results corresponding to the respective keywords (e.g. the search results are retrieved responsive to search criteria including the keywords. An example is provided wherein the term "sushi" is emphasized in the keyword section 180 and the displayed search results are responsive to the emphasized keyword.).)
and wherein, the keywords are configured to filter the search results corresponding to the respective keywords; See Paragraph [0038], (Keywords portion 180 allows users to select one of the keywords not used in the search to perform searching based on the selected keyword, i.e. wherein, the keywords are configured to filter the search results corresponding to the respective keywords (e.g. a user may interact with a keyword of keyword section 180 in order to perform a search operation which retrieves search results relevant to said keyword).)
showing the second search result page comprising a category title, See FIG. 3 & Paragraph [0036], (FIG. 3 illustrates the search pane comprising search results 190 and also including a sponsored sites section 188 which is illustrated as having a title “Sponsored Sites”. Search result section 190 comprises an entry titled “Sushi”., i.e. showing the second search result page comprising a category title.)
wherein the respective keywords are shown on the first search result page in a distinguishable display style; See FIG. 3 & Paragraph [0036], (FIG. 3 illustrates the search interface comprising keyword section 180 which illustrates bolded, italicized, underlined keywords, i.e. wherein the respective keywords are shown on the first search result page in a distinguishable display style;)
and wherein, the display style of any one of the keywords is determined based on a relevance of the corresponding keyword to the search word and/or a click-through rate of the keyword, See Paragraph [0029], (The graphical user interface comprises a keyword well comprising keywords identified according to a relevancy rating, i.e. wherein, the display style of any one of the keywords is determined based on a relevance of the corresponding keyword to the search word (e.g. keywords are included and organized in the keywords well according to relevance.)
and wherein the display style comprises at least two of a font size, a color, a display position, and a showing area of the search results. See FIG. 3 & Paragraph [0036], (Keyword section 180 displays keywords in a particular order according to search relevance. For example, the first keyword is placed first on the list and emphasized in bold, italics, etc., i.e. wherein the display style comprises at least a color (e.g. keywords may be emphasized in bold, italics, etc.), a display position (e.g. keyword section 180 is a location on the user interface as in FIG. 3 wherein the individual keywords are arranged in a particular order (e.g. the first keyword representing a term initially sent to the search system. The remaining keywords have lower relevance and are placed later on the list, Note [0036]).
Marchisio and Bromm are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, search interfaces. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Marchisio to include the search pane and associated keyword section as disclosed by Bromm. Paragraph [0047] of Bromm discloses that the system may automatically identify keywords or phrases that are most relevant to the current context, which allows a user to conduct further searches by providing additional terms that may be relevant to the current search.
Marchisio-Bromm does not disclose the step of showing the first search result page at a predefined position of the second search result page, in response to a first triggering operation on the second search result page.
ESINOVSKAYA discloses the step of showing the first search result page at a predefined position of the second search result page, in response to a first triggering operation on the second search result page. See Paragraph [0087], (Disclosing a system for managing generation of a content recommendation interface for a user. The system may comprise an electronic device 210 having touchscreen 190 that a user may interact with via a swiping gesture. A swiping gesture, such as a downward swipe, may cause a first visual transition from a first GUI having a first interface element to a second GUI comprising the first interface element and a second interface element to be displayed partially or entirely, i.e. showing the second search result page, and showing the first search result page at a predefined position of the second search result page (e.g. the second GUI displaying first and second interface elements), in response to a first triggering operation on the second search result page (e.g. the display changes according to the swiping gesture).) See FIG. 5, (FIG. 5 illustrates a display of content representing two recommendations 540, 550 wherein recommended content may comprise a logo 552, title 554 and a portion of an excerpt of other recommended content, i.e. showing the second search result page comprising a category title (e.g. recommended content may be presented to a user).)
The examiner notes that Paragraph [0074] of Applicant's Specification defines a "first triggering operation" as "a gesture operation such as swiping along one certain direction, or multi-finger tapping, etc., or a non-contact operation such as voice control or eye movement control." The method of ESINOVSKAYA describes a swiping gesture that meets the definition described above.
The examiner notes that the method of ESINOVSKAYA is directed to managing display of graphical elements in response to a swiping gesture that may be applied to the system of Bromm wherein the GUI of FIG. 3 illustrates a sequence of graphical elements that may be navigated by a user such as by clicking the “Show more results” element which may benefit from gesture-based navigation as provided in ESINOVSKAYA.
Marchisio, Bromm and ESINOVSKAYA are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, content delivery via graphical user interfaces. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Marchisio-Bromm to include the swiping features described by ESINOVSKAYA. Doing so would allow a user to navigate a user interface that may dynamically display a plurality of elements on a graphical user interface in order to provide users with content recommendations that suit their goals with regard to consuming content.
Marchisio-Bromm-ESINOVSKAYA does not disclose the step wherein the showing the first search result page at the predefined position of the second search result page comprises: creating a hover window on the second search result page, and showing the first search result page in the hover window; or showing the first search result page overlaying the second search result page; or moving the search results corresponding to the respective keywords on the second search result page along an operation direction of the first triggering operation, and displaying the first search result page on a resulting vacated area of the second search result page. See FIG. 4 & Paragraph [0047], (Disclosing a system for presenting query-refinement advertisements based on query-completion suggestions. FIG. 4 illustrates a search page 400 comprising a query-input region 310 having a query-completion suggestions 412 section comprising phrases associated with queries associated with a user input text in query-input region 410. A user may interact with a query suggestions by executing gestures such as swiping in order to cause presentation of a query-refinement advertisement 416 located adjacent to the query-input region 410, i.e. wherein the showing the first search result page at the predefined position of the second search result page comprises: creating a hover window on the second search result page (e.g. the swiping interaction generates a query-refinement advertisement 416 adjacent to section 412 of the user interface), and showing the first search result page in the hover window (e.g. search results associated with the swiping and suggestions in the generated advertisement window 416).)
Marchisio, Bromm, ESINOVSKAYA and WEATHERFORD are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, search result presentation. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Marchisio-Bromm-ESINOVSKAYA to include the method of displaying search results by generating a suggestion preview for a search result as disclosed by WEATHERFORD. Paragraph [0003] of WEATHERFORD discloses that the query-refinement suggestions presented adjacent to the inputted query allow users to naigate to a landing page that addresses a user's intent without needing to execute potentially multiple queries. This result improves monetization opportunities for the search services and increases user satisfaction,
Regarding dependent claim 2,
As discussed above with claim 1, Marchisio-Bromm-ESINOVSKAYA- WEATHERFORD discloses all of the limitations.
WEATHERFORD further discloses the step wherein the showing the first search result page at the predefined position of the second search result page comprises: swiping from the second search result page to the first search result page, along the operation direction of the first triggering operation; See FIG. 4 & Paragraph [0047], ( FIG. 4 illustrates a search page 400 comprising a query-input region 310 having a query-completion suggestions 412 section comprising phrases associated with queries associated with a user input text in query-input region 410. A user may interact with a query suggestion by executing gestures such as swiping in order to cause presentation of a query-refinement advertisement 416 located adjacent to the query-input region 410, i.e. wherein the showing the first search result page at the predefined position of the second search result page comprises: swiping from the second search result page to the first search result page, along the operation direction of the first triggering operation;)
Regarding dependent claim 3,
As discussed above with claim 1, Marchisio-Bromm-ESINOVSKAYA- WEATHERFORD discloses all of the limitations.
Bromm further discloses the step wherein after showing the first search result page at the predefined position of the second search result page, in response to the first triggering operation on the second search result page, further comprising: displaying search results corresponding to a target keyword among the respective keywords on a terminal display interface, if a second triggering operation on the target keyword is detected. See Paragraph [0057], (Keywords displayed for a user may be selected via a mouse or other pointing device, which prompts the system to perform a search relating to the selected keyword, i.e. displaying search results corresponding to a target keyword among the respective keywords on a terminal display interface, if a second triggering operation on the target keyword is detected.)
The examiner notes that Paragraph [0097] of Applicant's Specification defines a "second triggering operation" as corresponding to: "selecting the keyword, which may be, for example, a click operation, or a non-contact triggering operation such as voice control, gesture control, and eye movement control." Bromm explicitly describes a step wherein a user selects a keyword via clicking using a mouse or other pointing device.
Regarding dependent claim 4,
As discussed above with claim 3, Marchisio-Bromm-ESINOVSKAYA- WEATHERFORD discloses all of the limitations.
Bromm further discloses the step wherein the displaying the search results corresponding to the target keyword on the terminal display interface comprises: displaying the first search result page in a first area of the terminal display interface; See FIG. 3 & Paragraph [0036], (FIG. 3 illustrates a search interface comprising search results section 180 comprising keywords organized in order of relevance. FIG. 3 illustrates a keyword “sushi” being emphasized in bold, underline and italicized located vertically above the search results section 190 wherein the search results are associated with the keyword “sushi”, i.e. displaying the first search result page in a first area of the terminal display interface.)
and displaying the search results corresponding to the target keyword in a second region of the terminal display interface; See FIG. 3 & Paragraph [0036], (FIG. 3 illustrates a search interface comprising search results section 190 comprising search results related to keywords, i.e. displaying the search results corresponding to the target keyword in a second region of the terminal display interface.)
wherein the second area is a remaining area in the terminal display interface other than the first area. See FIG. 3 & Paragraph [0036], (FIG. 3 illustrates a search interface comprising search results section 190 which is separate from the keyword section 180 and are located on different sections of the user interface of FIG. 3, i.e. wherein the second area is a remaining area in the terminal display interface other than the first area.)
Additionally, ESINOVSKAYA further discloses the step wherein, the first area is an area within a setting range of the terminal display interface in the operation direction of the first trigger operation; See Paragraph [0089, (A first interface element is organized in a vertical manner with regards to second, third, etc. interface elements that may be displayed once a user navigates through the interface via swiping gestures that may be in upward or downward, i.e. wherein, the first area is an area within a setting range of the terminal display interface in the operation direction of the first trigger operation (e.g. the swiping gesture is performed in a direction).)
Regarding dependent claim 9,
As discussed above with claim 1, Marchisio-Bromm-ESINOVSKAYA-WEATHERFORD discloses all of the limitations.
WEATHERFORD discloses the step wherein the search intents comprise a multi-topic search intent. See FIG. 3 & Paragraph [0047], (FIG. 4 illustrates search suggestions 412 as relating to a wide variety of topics relating to a currently provided search input. Note [0061] wherein at least a portion of a search query ius received in order to generate one or more query-completion suggestions, i.e. the search intents are multi-topic search intent.)
Regarding independent claim 11,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of independent claim 1 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding independent claim 12,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of independent claim 1 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 14,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 2 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 15,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 3 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 16,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 4 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 21,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 9 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 22,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 2 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchisio in view of Bromm, ESINOVSKAYA and WEATHERFORD as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ismalon (US PGPUB No. 2011/0035403; Pub. Date: Feb. 10, 2011).
Regarding dependent claim 5,
As discussed above with claim 4, Marchisio-Bromm-ESINOVSKAYA- WEATHERFORD discloses all of the limitations.
Marchisio-Bromm-ESINOVSKAYA- WEATHERFORD does not disclose the step of continuing to display the search results corresponding to the target keyword along an operation direction of a third triggering operation, if the third triggering operation on the second area is detected;
wherein, the operation direction of the third triggering operation is the same as that of the first triggering operation.
Ismalon further discloses the step of continuing to display the search results corresponding to the target keyword along an operation direction of a third triggering operation, if the third triggering operation on the second area is detected; See Paragraph [0087], (The system may comprise an electronic device 210 having touchscreen 190 that a user may interact with via a swiping gesture. A swiping gesture, such as a downward swipe, may cause a first visual transition from a first GUI having a first interrace element to a second GUI comprising the first interface element and a second interface element to be displayed partially or entirely, i.e. i.e. continuing to display the search results corresponding to the target keyword along a operation direction of a third triggering operation, if the third triggering operation on the second area is detected (e.g. the swiping operation allows the system to display first and second interface elements simultaneously).)
wherein, the operation direction of the third triggering operation is the same as that of the first triggering operation. See Paragraph [0087], (Users may interact with the system via a swipe gesture to scroll through graphical user interface elements, i.e. wherein, the fourth third operation is the same as the first triggering operation (e.g. the first triggering operation was previously defined as a swiping operation. Therefore, a user may swipe through a user interface multiple times, which would yield the same result of scrolling while displaying interface elements.)
Marchisio, Bromm, ESINOVSKAYA, WEATHERFORD and Ismalon are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data search interfaces. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Marchisio-Bromm-ESINOVSKAYA- WEATHERFORD to include the refinement interfaces for queries as disclosed by Ismalon. Paragraph [0542] of Ismalon discloses that the process of providing search query results and allowing for refinements is considered to improve the efficiency of searching and conserving the use of computer resources.
Regarding dependent claim 7,
As discussed above with claim 3, Marchisio-Ismalon-ESINOVSKAYA- WEATHERFORD discloses all of the limitations.
Marchisio-Bromm-ESINOVSKAYA- WEATHERFORD does not disclose the step of re-displaying the first search result page on the terminal display interface, if a fourth triggering operation to the terminal display interface is detected;
wherein, the fourth triggering operation is the same as the first triggering operation.
Ismalon discloses the step of re-displaying the first search result page on the terminal display interface, if a fourth triggering operation to the terminal display interface is detected; See Paragraph [0087], (The system may comprise an electronic device 210 having touchscreen 190 that a user may interact with via a swiping gesture. A swiping gesture, such as a downward swipe, may cause a first visual transition from a first GUI having a first interrace element to a second GUI comprising the first interface element and a second interface element to be displayed partially or entirely, i.e. re-displaying the first search result page on the terminal display interface (e.g. displaying the first interface element and second interface element when a swipe gesture is detected), if a fourth triggering operation to the terminal display interface is detected.)
wherein, the fourth triggering operation is the same as the first triggering operation. See Paragraph [0087], (Users may interact with the system via a swipe gesture to scroll through graphical user interface elements, i.e. wherein, the fourth triggering operation is the same as the first triggering operation (e.g. the first triggering operation was previously defined as a swiping operation. Therefore, a user may swipe through a user interface multiple times to repeat the process.)
Marchisio, Bromm, ESINOVSKAYA, WEATHERFORD and Ismalon are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, data search interfaces. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Marchisio-Bromm-ESINOVSKAYA- WEATHERFORD to include the refinement interfaces for queries as disclosed by Ismalon. Paragraph [0542] of Ismalon discloses that the process of providing search query results and allowing for refinements is considered to improve the efficiency of searching and conserving the use of computer resources.
Regarding dependent claim 17,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 5 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 19,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 7 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchisio in view of Bromm, ESINOVSKAYA and WEATHERFORD as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Cardell et al. (US PGPUB No. 2014/0310255; Pub. Date: Oct. 16, 2014).
Regarding dependent claim 6,
As discussed above with claim 1, Marchisio-Bromm-ESINOVSKAYA- WEATHERFORD discloses all of the limitations.
ESINOVSKAYA further discloses the step wherein, the second direction is opposite to the operation direction of the first triggering operation, See Paragraph [0087], (Users may interact with the system via a swipe gesture to scroll through graphical user interface elements in either upwards or downwards directions.)
Marchisio-Bromm-ESINOVSKAYA- WEATHERFORD does not disclose the step of displaying a predefined control at a top of the terminal display interface along a second direction after displaying a predefined quantity of the search results corresponding to the target keyword;
wherein the predefined control is configured to trigger continuing to display un-displayed search results from the search results corresponding to the target keyword.
Cardell discloses the step of disclose the step of displaying a predefined control at a top of the terminal display interface along a second direction after displaying a predefined quantity of the search results corresponding to the target keyword; See FIG. 2B & Paragraph [0036], (Disclosing a system for processing image content items including receiving a set of search query suggestions to render a search results page that includes search results and suggestions. The system comprises a graphical user interface as in FIG. 2B wherein the system may display a search result 222 on query suggestion display environment 220 which includes a "view more images" button. Environment 220 is located above a sequence of search results SR11-1, SR12-1, etc., i.e. displaying a predefined control at a top of the terminal display interface (e.g. the "view more images" button is located above the remaining search results) along a second direction (e.g. the scroll bar on the right side of the interface of FIG. 2 indicates that the search result is presented in an upward direction, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the same interface may be displayed on a user selection of a search result further down in the interface) after displaying a predefined quantity of the search results corresponding to the target keyword (e.g. the search suggestion is associated with a suggestion term 224 such as "rhubarb plant" as in FIG. 2B).)
wherein the predefined control is configured to trigger continuing to display un-displayed search results from the search results corresponding to the target keyword. See FIG. 2B & Paragraph [0036], (Selecting the "view more images" button causes the user device to submit the query suggestion to the search engine as a query, which generates a new results page including the query suggestion as an input query such that the displayed search results are responsive to the query suggestion, i.e. wherein the predefined control is configured to trigger continuing to display of un-displayed search results from the search results corresponding to the target keyword.)
Marchisio, Bromm, ESINOVSKAYA, WEATHERFORD and Cardell are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, search systems. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Marchisio-Bromm-ESINOVSKAYA-WEATHERFORD to include the method of including controls for displaying additional search results as disclosed by Cardell. Paragraph [0006] of Cardell discloses that the method of displaying query suggestion groupings provides users with a representative resource context for a query suggestion, which visually facilitates analysis of the context of a particular query suggestion. This visual analysis may help users discern whether the search suggestion will help satisfy information needs.
Regarding dependent claim 18,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 6 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Examiner’s Input
The following represents the examiner's suggestions and/or feedback regarding potential claim amendments and clarifications that may distinguish the claimed invention over the currently cited prior art:
Regarding independent claim 1,
Claim 1 recites the following limitation as currently presented:
and wherein the showing the first search result page at the predefined position of the second search result page comprises: creating a hover window on the second search result page, and showing the first search result page in the hover window; or showing the first search result page overlaying the second search result page; or moving the search results corresponding to the respective keywords on the second search result page along an operation direction of the first triggering operation, and displaying the first search result page on a resulting vacated area of the second search result page.
Of the presented alternatives, the step of “creating a hover window” is disclosed in WEATHERHEAD as discussed in the rejection above. Of the remaining alternatives, the step of “moving the search results…along an operation direction…” is not present in any of the currently cited references. The examiner suggests amending claim 1 and the remaining corresponding independent claims to focus on the step of “moving the search results” that is not disclosed by the currently cited references.
Any amendments would require further search and/or consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 11-12, 14, 16-18 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments modify the scope of the claimed invention and therefore necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fernando M Mari whose telephone number is (571)272-2498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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.
/FMMV/Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights