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 .
● This action is responsive to the following communication: an amendment filed on 1/30/2026.
● Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
● The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
● The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-13, 15-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 20120330919) in view of Raghunath (US 8484218).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a search prompt method, comprising:
receiving search information (abstract, fig. figs. 1-3) in a first language (e.g. English as shown in fig. 1);
performing matching (fig. 2-4) based on the search information in the first language, determining a plurality of search keywords in the first language (fig. 1);
determining a plurality of search keywords (keywords as shown in fig. 1) in a target language (e.g. Chinese language, fig. 1) respectively corresponding to the plurality of search keywords in the first language (fig.1);
determining search keywords, as predictive search keywords (predictive keywords as shown in fig. 1, see reference 140), in the first language corresponding to search keywords in the target language (first language and second language as shown in fig. 1); and feeding back the predictive search keywords to perform search prompt in a search box (search box as shown in fig. 1).
Chen fails to teach and/or suggest a sorting module constructed on the basis of the target language and screening the sorted plurality of the search keywords in the target language.
Raghunath, in the same field of endeavor for language translation, teaches a sorting module constructed on the basis of the target language and screening the sorted plurality of the search keywords in the target language.
Raghunath, in the same field of endeavor for keyword searching, teaches a sorting (sorting keywords based upon frequency of occurrence, fig. 1) module constructed on the basis of the target language and screening (sorting/screen keywords from the target language based upon frequency of occurrence, figs. 1, 3, col. 1, lines 46-67, col. 2, lines 5-55) the sorted plurality of the search keywords in the target language.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by modifying searching processing of Chen to include methods/steps of sorting/screening based on the plurality of search keywords as taught by Raghunath to improve search results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chen with Raghunath to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Chen further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the performing matching based on the search information in the first language, determining the plurality of search keywords in the first language comprises: querying first index information (fig. 3) by using the search information in the first language as a prefix, determining at least one search keyword in the first language (first/second language, fig. 1), wherein the first index information is created by using prefixes as indexes; and matching, based on the search information in the first language, historical search data, determining at least one search keyword in the first language.
Regarding claim 3, Chen further discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: on condition that a number of the search keywords in the first language is less than a set threshold, matching the search keywords (par. 2) in the first language corresponding to the search information in other ways.
Regarding claim 5, Chen further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the plurality of search keywords in the target language respectively corresponding to the plurality of search keywords in the first language comprises: determining whether the first language is the target language (fig. 4); on condition that the first language is the target language, using the search keywords in the first language as the search keywords in the target language; and on condition that the first language is not the target language (pars. 18-20), querying the search keywords in the target language corresponding to the search keywords in the first language (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Raghunath further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the performing sorting based on the plurality of search keywords in the target language comprises: inputting the plurality of search keywords in the target language into a sorting module, determining a sorting score corresponding to each search keyword; and sorting the search keywords in the target language according to the sorting scores (figs. 1, 3, col. 12, lines 35-60).
Regarding claim 7, Raghunath further discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the inputting the plurality of search keywords in the target language into the sorting module (figs. 1, 3), determining the sorting score corresponding to each search keyword comprises: acquiring a historical search keyword sequence and feature parameters of a user, wherein the feature parameters comprise: user features, keyword features and deviation parameters (fig. 3); inputting the plurality of search keywords in the target language, the historical search keyword sequence (figs. 1, ) and the feature parameters into the sorting module for processing; and outputting the sorting score corresponding to each search keyword.
Regarding claim 10, Chen further discloses an electronic device (fig. 2A-2B), comprising: a processor; and a memory with executable codes stored therein, wherein the executable codes, when executed by the processor, execute the method according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Chen further discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium (storage device, par. 91) with executable codes stored therein, wherein the executable codes, when executed by a processor, execute the method according to claim 1.
Regarding claims 8-13, 15-16, 18-20 recite limitations that are similar and in the same scope of invention as to those in claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-11 above; therefore, claims 8-13, 15-16, 18-20 are rejected for the same rejection rationale/basis as described in claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-11 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
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 THIERRY L PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7439. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 11-6.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at 571-272-6338. 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.
/THIERRY L PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights