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 application filed on 11/18/2025, in which claims 21, 28, 31, and 38 was amended, and claims 21 - 40 was presented for further examination.
3. Claims 21 – 40 are now pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2025 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
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21 - 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.
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.
6. 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 Evers et al (US 2013/0103663 A1), and further in view of Lim (US 2015/0082182 A1).
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 (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.
However, Evers et al (US 2013/0103663 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 (para.[0032]; “receive requests from the first user to load mind maps ………If the user is retrieving an existing mind map, the instructions will most likely cause the first client computer 36 to display multiple nodes and interconnecting relationships”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the invention was filed to incorporate convenient process of accessing pertinent information of the system of Evers into merging of different search result of the system of Bard to provide relevant information from different sources to the user.
Neither Bard nor Evers 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 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 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 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.
7. Claims 23 – 25 and 33 – 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bard et al (US 2009/0037412 A1), in view of Evers et al (US 2013/0103663 A1), in view of Lim (US 2015/0082182 A1), 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), Evers et al (US 2013/0103663 A1), and Lim (US 2015/0082182 A1) 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.
As per claim 24, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, Bard et al (US 2009/0037412 A1), Evers et al (US 2013/0103663 A1), and Lim (US 2015/0082182 A1) does not disclose wherein the weight value is provided by a user via the second GUI.
However, Uy (US 2010/0299317 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
wherein the weight value is provided by a user via the second GUI (para.[0100]; “displaying a set of search results along with any scores that have been determined for 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.
As per claim 25, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, Bard et al (US 2009/0037412 A1), Evers et al (US 2013/0103663 A1), and Lim (US 2015/0082182 A1) does not disclose wherein the weight value is automatically determined based on historical data.
However, Uy (US 2010/0299317 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
wherein the weight value is automatically determined based on historical data
(para.[0100]; “displaying a set of search results along with any scores that have been determined for 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 - 35 are system claim corresponding to method claims 23 - 25 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 23 - 25 respectively 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 Evers et al (US 2013/0103663 A1), in view of Lim (US 2015/0082182 A1), 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), Evers et al (US 2013/0103663 A1), and Lim (US 2015/0082182 A1) 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 convenient process of accessing pertinent information of the system of Evers 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
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 AUGUSTINE K. OBISESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2020. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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
3/2/2026