DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action is in response to amendment filed on 8/20/2026, in which claims 21 and 31 was amended, claims 24 – 25 and 34 – 35 was canceled, and claims 21 – 23, 26 – 33, and 36 – 40 was presented for further examination.
3. Claims 21 – 23, 26 – 33, and 36 – 40 are now pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
4. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/20/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/20/2026 has been reviewed and entered into the record. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21 – 23, 26 – 33, and 36 – 40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Remarks
7. As per amended claim 21, applicant argues in substance in pages 6 – 11 that Bard et al (US 2009/0037412 A1), Evers et al (US 2013/0103663 A1), and Lim (US 2015/0082182 A1) does not specifically disclose wherein an entry of the set data structure in the relational database comprises a unique set identifier and a set name, and an entry of the relation structure in the relational database comprises a unique relation identifier.
In response to applicants’ argument, Examiner respectfully responds that the combine teaching of Bard et al (US 2009/0037412 A1 Querel et al (WO 2002/003245 A1), Lim (US 2015/0082182 A1), and Harrison, Jr. (US 7599938 B1) specifically disclose wherein an entry of the set data structure in the relational database comprises a unique set identifier and a set name, and an entry of the relation structure in the relational database comprises a unique relation identifier (Querel: pg.4 line 20, pg.7 line 6, and pg.20 lines 1 – 3) .
Querel discloses a relational database structure for storing an object which can be accessed using SQL. The relational database consists of tables, and each table contains simple data objects. Each data object is designated by a unique identifier and a key field, “name”(pg.4 line 20, pg.7 line 6, pg.15 line 10, and pg.20 lines 1 – 3)
As per amended claim 21, applicant argues in substance in pages 6 – 11 that Bard et al (US 2009/0037412 A1), Evers et al (US 2013/0103663 A1), and Lim (US 2015/0082182 A1) does not specifically disclose a second GUI prompting a user to assign a weight value for each of the multiple database analyses, wherein the weight value for each of the multiple database analyses is provided by the user via the second GUI.
In response to applicants’ argument, Examiner respectfully responds that the combine teaching of Bard et al (US 2009/0037412 A1 Querel et al (WO 2002/003245 A1), Lim (US 2015/0082182 A1), and Harrison, Jr. (US 7599938 B1) specifically disclose a second GUI prompting a user to assign a weight value for each of the multiple database analyses, wherein the weight value for each of the multiple database analyses is provided by the user via the second GUI (col.7 lines 37 – 44).
Harrison discloses an interface where user can select a menu for assigning different search strategy. A user assigns a weight to the search component to combine the search results. After the search is performed, the user-assigned weight is used to combine the search results and the resulting ranking list is displayed with their relevance indicator value (see col.7 lines 33 – 47).
Thus, the rejection is maintained.
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.
8. Claims 21 – 22, 26 – 27, 29 - 32, 36 – 37, and 39 - 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bard et al (US 2009/0037412 A1), in view of Querel et al (WO 2002/003245 A1), in view of Lim (US 2015/0082182 A1), and further in view of Harrison, Jr. (US 7599938 B1).
As per claim 21, Bard et al (US 2009/0037412 A1) discloses,
A computer-implemented method for scoring and visualizing database analyses (para.[0038]; “applying weights to the search results” and para.[0199]; “result of that search is the screen display”).
wherein the multiple database analyses are performed on data objects stored in a relational database in defined fixed data structures (NOTE: para.[0047]; “web server that performs the steps of concurrently searching a product, service or topic using one or more of psychosocial indicators of books, experts, news and articles, associations, celebrities”).
wherein each of the multiple database analyses corresponds to a search path traversing from a first set of data objects to a second set of data objects (para.[0120]; “user or consumer inputs a keyword search query at the PIQSEE 20 website (not shown). The user is then permitted to have PIQSEE 20 concurrently search all PI paths and to provide a PIQSEE final or "simple" report or the user can instruct PIQSEE 20 to search on one or any combination of the PI paths”).
prompting a user to assign a weight value for each of the multiple database analyses and combining the multiple database analyses via the second GUI (NOTE: para.[0050]; “para.[0050]; “combining said search results comprises applying weights to the search results” and para.[0190]; “When each of the PI searches is completed (either all of them or anyone or combination of them), the results from each of the PI path searches is aggregated/merged” and para.[0198]; “the end result of combining the search results from each of the PI paths”).
and(d) displaying a result of the combined analysis via a third GUI (para.[0198]; “the end result of combining the search results from each of the PI paths 22-36, provides an overall listing of the best tennis racquets (again, by way of example only), with the most preferred being presented as "1" and the least preferred being presented as "10"; other subcategories, e.g., "top male player tennis racquets" and "top female player tennis racquets" are also displayed in ranking order”).
wherein the result comprises a subset of data objects in the combined analysis and scores associated with the subset of data objects (para.[0198]; “the end result of combining the search results from each of the PI paths 22-36, provides an overall listing of the best tennis racquets (again, by way of example only), with the most preferred being presented as "1" and the least preferred being presented as "10").
wherein a score associated with a data object from the subset of the data objects is calculated based at least in part on the weight value (para.[0190]; “use various kinds of ranking and combination mechanisms, e.g., weighting functions, to provide a qualitative ranking of the searched products, services, or topics” and para.[0198]; “the most preferred being presented as "1" and the least preferred being presented as "10").
Bard does not specifically disclose wherein the multiple database analyses are performed on data objects stored in a relational database in defined fixed data structures, wherein an entry of the set data structure in the relational database comprises a unique set identifier and a set name, and wherein an entry of the relation structure in the relational database comprises a unique relation identifier, wherein a unique set identifier and a set name of the main set is stored in an entry of the set data structure.
However, Querel et al (WO 2002/003245 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
wherein the multiple database analyses are performed on data objects stored in a relational database in defined fixed data structures (pg.4 line 20; “the relational database management system, or RDBMS, used is implemented using the standard language Structured Query” and pg.7 line 6; “provides a system for storing information objects or objects, in a relational database”).
wherein an entry of the set data structure in the relational database comprises a unique set identifier and a set name (pg.20 lines 1 – 3; “relational database (2) being made up of tables, each table being made up a table of simple data sets, said sets having the same data structure in the same table, each single data item of a table being designated by a unique identifier in said table, an object (6) consisting of one or more simple data that can be stored in a table of said database”).
and wherein an entry of the relation structure in the relational database comprises a unique relation identifier (pg.20 lines 1 – 3; “relational database (2) being made up of tables, each table being made up a table of simple data sets, said sets having the same data structure in the same table, each single data item of a table being designated by a unique identifier in said table”).
wherein a unique set identifier and a set name of the main set is stored in an entry of the set data structure (pg.15 line 10; “RDBMS function, for the main set 31, consisting of the single fields "key" 11, "name"”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the invention was filed to incorporate data structure of the system of Querel into merging of different search result of the system of Bard to provide relevant information from different sources to the user.
Neither Bard nor Querel specifically disclose wherein each of the multiple database analyses corresponds to a search path traversing from a first set of data objects to a second set of data objects, wherein the defined fixed data structures comprise at least a set data structure represented by a node in the search path and at least a relation structure represented by a link between nodes displayed on the first GUI, (b) receiving, via the first GUI, a user input indicative of a selection of a node representing a main set for generating a combined analysis, (c) upon receiving the user input via the first GUI, displaying a second GUI.
However, Lim (US 2015/0082182 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
wherein each of the multiple database analyses corresponds to a search path traversing from a first set of data objects to a second set of data objects (NOTE: para.[0073]; “a first GUI for representing a web server which is an upper domain and a second GUI for representing various sub categories provided by the corresponding web
server which is a lower domain”).
wherein the defined fixed data structures comprise at least a set data structure represented by a node in the search path and at least a relation structure represented by a link between nodes displayed on the first GUI (para.[0073]; “a first GUI for representing a web server which is an upper domain and a second GUI for representing various sub categories provided by the corresponding web server which is a lower domain”)
(b) receiving, via the first GUI, a user input indicative of a selection of a node representing a main set shared by the multiple database analyses for generating a combined analysis (para.[0082]; “if a GUI which represents a specific web server from among the first GUI is selected, the controller 130 may control to display the second GUI which represents sub domains that can be provided by the selected web server”).
(c) upon receiving the user input via the first GUI, displaying a second GUI (para.[0082]; “if a GUI which represents a specific web server from among the first GUI is selected, the controller 130 may control to display the second GUI which represents sub domains that can be provided by the selected web server”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate search interface of the system of Lim into data structure of the system of Querel to provide relevant information associated with search result, thereby enabling user understand the source of the information returns to user.
Neither Bard nor Querel nor Lim specifically disclose upon receiving the user input via the first GUI, displaying a second GUI prompting a user to assign a weight value for each of the multiple database analyses, wherein the weight value for each of the multiple database analyses is provided by the user via the second GUI and combining the multiple database analyses via the second GUI.
However, Harrison, Jr. (US 7599938 B1) in an analogous art discloses,
upon receiving the user input via the first GUI, displaying a second GUI prompting a user to assign a weight value for each of the multiple database analyses (col.7 lines 37 – 40; “search component is selected from a menu of different search methodologies. A weight is assigned to the search component for use in combining the results of the search component with another search component”).
wherein the weight value for each of the multiple database analyses is provided by the user via the second GUI and combining the multiple database analyses via the second GUI (col.7 lines 42 – 44; “Search results are combined according to user-assigned weights, and a resulting rank list is returned to the user”).
and(d) displaying a result of the combined analysis via a third GUI (NOTE: col.7 lines 42 – 44; “Search results are combined according to user-assigned weights, and a resulting rank list is returned to the user”).
wherein the result comprises a subset of data objects in the combined analysis and scores associated with the subset of data objects (NOTE: col.7 lines 42 – 47; “Search results are combined according to user-assigned weights, and a resulting rank list is returned to the user, along with a performance indicator for each search component so that the user can immediately discern which search technique is most effective for the particular case”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate the process of combining search result based on user’s assigned weight into search interface of the system of Lim and data structure of the system of Querel to provide present relevant result based on user interest.
As per claim 22, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Bard et al (US 2009/0037412 A1) discloses,
wherein the score associated with the data object is calculated as a weighted sum based at least in part on the weight value and a count of the data object shown in the subset of the data objects (para.[0190]; “use various kinds of ranking and combination mechanisms, e.g., weighting functions, to provide a qualitative ranking of the searched products, services, or topics”).
As per claim 26, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Bard et al
Bard et al (US 2009/0037412 A1) discloses,
wherein each of the multiple database analyses comprises one or more database query operations (para.[0047]; “searching a product, service or topic using one or more of psychosocial indicators of books, experts, news and articles, associations, celebrities”).
As per claim 27, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Evers et al (US 2013/0103663 A1) discloses,
wherein the relational database stores the data objects in a non-hierarchical manner (para.[0022]; “relational database, such as MySQL, Oracle, IBM DB2, and SQLight databases, may be used instead”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate search interface of the system of Lim into convenient process of accessing pertinent information of the system of Evers to provide relevant information associated with search result, thereby enabling user understand the source of the information returns to user.
As per claim 29, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Bard et al
Bard et al (US 2009/0037412 A1) discloses,
wherein combining the multiple database analyses comprises applying a UNION operation to multiple search results of the multiple database analyses (para.[0035]; “combining the search results of the categories to form a report that ranks the searched product, service or topic from most preferred to least preferred”).
.
As per claim 30, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Bard et al
Bard et al (US 2009/0037412 A1) discloses,
wherein the third GUI allows a user to rank the subset of data objects based on the scores (para.[0050]; “combining said search results comprises applying weights to the search results”).
Claims 31 – 32, 36 – 37, and 39 - 40 are system claim corresponding to method claims 21 – 22, 26 – 27, and 29 - 30 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 21 – 22, 26 – 27, and 29 - 30 respectively above.
9. Claims 23 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bard et al (US 2009/0037412 A1), in view of Querel et al (WO 2002/003245 A1), in view of Lim (US 2015/0082182 A1), in view of Harrison, Jr. (US 7599938 B1), and further in view of Uy (US 2010/0299317 A1).
As per claim 23, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, Bard et al (US 2009/0037412 A1), Querel et al (WO 2002/003245 A1), Lim (US 2015/0082182 A1), and Harrison, Jr. (US 7599938 B1) does not disclose wherein the third GUI displays a score value, a timestamp and an indication of contribution of the multiple database analyses.
However, Uy (US 2010/0299317 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
wherein the third GUI displays a score value, a timestamp and an indication of contribution of the multiple database analyses (para.[0032]; “displaying search results along with score values for the electronic documents referenced by the search results”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate search result relevant information of the system of Uy into search interface of the system of Lim and convenient process of accessing pertinent information of the system of Evers to indicate search result relevancy in the system of Bard, thereby enabling user understand the popularity and quality of search result.
Claims 33 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 23, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claim 23 above.
8. Claims 28 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bard et al (US 2009/0037412 A1), in view of Querel et al (WO 2002/003245 A1), in view of Lim (US 2015/0082182 A1), in view of Harrison Jr. (US 7599938 B1), and further in view of Wittke et al (US 2022/0075775 A1).
As per claim 28, the rejection of claim 27 is incorporated, Bard et al (US 2009/0037412 A1), Querel et al (WO 2002/003245 A1), Lim (US 2015/0082182 A1), and Harrison Jr. (US 7599938 B1), does not disclose receiving a user input indicative of duplicating the scores associated with the result for creating a new combined analysis.
However, Wittke et al (US 2022/0075775 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
further comprising receiving a user input indicative of duplicating the scores associated with the result for creating a new combined analysis (para.[0026]; “each result of the merged group of search results with each result of the third search results, a number of duplicate results between the merged search results and the third search results”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate indication of duplicate in a merge search result of the system of Wittke into search interface of the system of Lim and data structure of Querel for removing unnecessary search result, thereby improving the quality of information presented to user.
Claim 38 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 28, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claim 28 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
TITLE: Method and structure for managing multiple electronic forms and their records using a static database, US 2014/0280026 A1 author: Ross Anderson.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUGUSTINE KUNLE OBISESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2020. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/AUGUSTINE K. OBISESAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2156
9/29/2026
