DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment filed on 04/05/2026.
Claims 1-15 are pending in the case.
No claims have been cancelled or added.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 11:
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the lower classification is the smallest" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henkin et al. (US 2005/0149395 A1, published 07/07/2005, hereinafter “Henkin”) in view of Rouhani-Kalleh (US 2010/0094846 A1, published 04/15/2010, hereinafter “Rouhani-Kalleh”).
Independent Claims 1, 8 and 15:
Henkin discloses a device comprising:
a memory [non-transitory non-volatile computer-readable recording medium] storing a program (Henkin: ¶ [0071], [0074]-[0075]); and
at least one processor that executes the program, wherein the at least one processor executes a method wherein the processor is configured to (Henkin: Fig. 15, ¶ [0070]-[0071])
detect, from within text included in a display request page, for which displaying is requested from a terminal, a keyword associated with a subject to be displayed (When the user requests to view a web page, the text of the web page is analyzed to detect keywords corresponding to subject matter associated with contextual information that is to be displayed, Henkin: abstract, ¶ [0033], [0035]-[0036].), and
when the keyword is detected, add, to the keyword within the text, a link to a page related to a subject to be displayed (Based on the identified keyword and contextual information, the web content is modified, Henkin: Fig. 3, ¶ [0039]-[0041]. The modification comprises converting existing text into keywords that link to the contextual content such as “NaviLinks” that navigate to a web page that comprises information related to the keyword, Henkin: Fig. 10E, ¶ [0042].).
Henkin does not appear to expressly teach a device, medium and method wherein:
the keyword is associated with a plurality of subjects, each of which is associated with a different display request page among a plurality of display request pages; and
wherein the page is related to a representative subject selected from among the plurality of subjects to be displayed, based on a predetermined criterion.
However, Rouhani-Kalleh teaches a device, medium and method wherein:
the keyword is associated with a plurality of subjects, each of which is associated with a different display request page among a plurality of display request pages (Keywords can be associated with multiple objects associated with different categories, Rouhani-Kalleh: abstract. An object refers to any real-world subject matter, Rouhani-Kalleh: ¶ [0029]. Each object can correspond to a different web page, Rouhani-Kalleh: ¶ [0030]-[0031].); and
wherein the page is related to a representative subject selected from among the plurality of subjects to be displayed, based on a predetermined criterion (The objects represent the meaning of the keyword (representative subject), Rouhani-Kalleh: ¶ [0071]. The object is selected based on a confidence score threshold (predetermined criterion), Rouhani-Kalleh, ¶ [0017], [0031]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device, medium and method of Henkin wherein:
the keyword is associated with a plurality of subjects, each of which is associated with a different display request page among a plurality of display request pages; and
wherein the page is related to a representative subject selected from among the plurality of subjects to be displayed, based on a predetermined criterion, as taught by Rouhani-Kalleh.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to resolve the correct web page for ambiguous keywords (Rouhani: abstract, ¶ [0002]-[0006].).
Claims 2 and 9:
The rejection of claims 1 and 8 are incorporated. Rouhani-Kalleh further discloses a device and method wherein the at least one processor displays, on the terminal, the display request page including the keyword to which the link is added (Henkin: Figs. 3 and 10E, ¶ [0040]-[0042]).
Claims 7 and 14:
The rejection of claims 1 and 8 are incorporated. Henkin in view of Rouhani-Kalleh further discloses a device and method wherein the subject to be displayed is a product, and the keyword is information expressing the product, a group of the product, or a feature of the product (The keyword can be a product and the contextual content to be displayed contains said product, Henkin: Fig. 10D, ¶ [0042], [0060]-[0061]).
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henkin in view of Rouhani-Kalleh and further in view of Ribak et al. (US 2003/0030645 A1, published 02/13/2003, hereinafter “Ribak”).
Claims 3 and 10:
The rejection of claims 1 and 8 are incorporated. Henkin in view of Rouhani-Kalleh does not appear to expressly teach a device and method wherein the at least one processor displays, on the terminal, the display request page including the keyword to which the link is not added and then, at a predetermined timing, displays, on the terminal, the display request page including the keyword to which the link is added.
However, Ribak teaches a device and method wherein the at least one processor displays, on the terminal, the display request page including the keyword to which the link is not added and then, at a predetermined timing, displays, on the terminal, the display request page including the keyword to which the link is added (The user is provided with sliders that control when (timing) the hyperlinks are displayed on keywords, for example the slider for internet links can be at the minimum level (showing no hyperlinks) and then when the user adjusts the slider to the maximum position all of the hyperlinks are displayed, Ribak: 2A-2B, ¶ [0039]-[0043]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device and method of Henkin in view of Rouhani-Kalleh wherein the at least one processor displays, on the terminal, the display request page including the keyword to which the link is not added and then, at a predetermined timing, displays, on the terminal, the display request page including the keyword to which the link is added, as taught by Ribak.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing the user with greater control over the type and amount of hyperlinks displayed in the content (Ribak: 2A-2B, ¶ [0039]-[0043]).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henkin in view of Rouhani-Kalleh, further in view of Gorelick and further in view of Christopherson (US 2008/0163342 A1, published 07/03/2008, hereinafter “Christopherson”).
Claims 5 and 12:
The rejection of claims 1 and 8 are incorporated. Henkin in view of Rouhani-Kalleh does not appear to expressly teach a device and method wherein the at least one processor further:
detects, from within the text included in the display request page, a feature keyword expressing a feature of the subject to be displayed, and
adds, to the feature keyword within the text, a link to a page displaying the subject to be displayed, having the feature expressed by the feature keyword, as a list.
However, Gorelick teaches a device and method wherein the at least one processor further:
detects, from within the text included in the display request page, a feature keyword expressing a feature of the subject to be displayed (The keyword can correspond to “safety features”, Henkin: abstract, ¶ [0038]-[0040].), and
adds, to the feature keyword within the text, a link to a page displaying the subject to be displayed, having the feature expressed by the feature keyword, as a list (A hyperlink to a safety webpage from the website for a particular car company is added to the “safety features” keyword, Henkin: abstract, ¶ [0038]-[0040]. Although an example of the safety web page is not provided, using a list to display features corresponding to a product is known to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, Christopherson teaches that a web site can provide features of a product by presenting a list of the features, Christopherson: ¶ [0075]. One would have been motivated to use a feature list (as taught by Christopherson) in the safety features web page of Gorelick in order to provide a clear presentation of the features associated with the product.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device and method of Henkin in view of Rouhani-Kalleh wherein the at least one processor further:
detects, from within the text included in the display request page, a feature keyword expressing a feature of the subject to be displayed, and
adds, to the feature keyword within the text, a link to a page displaying the subject to be displayed, having the feature expressed by the feature keyword, as a list, as taught by Gorelick in view of Christopherson.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to create better associations between keywords and available content corresponding to products and to provide an effective presentation of the available content (Henkin: abstract, ¶ [0038]-[0040]; Christopherson: ¶ [0075].).
Claims 6 and 13:
The rejection of claims 1 and 8 are incorporated. Henkin in view of Rouhani-Kalleh does not appear to expressly teach a device and method wherein the at least one processor adds, in the display request page, a link to a page displaying, as a list, each subject to be displayed identified by the detected keyword.
However, Gorelick teaches a device and method wherein the at least one processor adds, in the display request page, a link to a page displaying, as a list, each subject to be displayed identified by the detected keyword (A hyperlink to a safety webpage from the website for a particular car company is added to the “safety features” keyword, Henkin: abstract, ¶ [0038]-[0040]. Although an example of the safety web page is not provided, using a list to display features corresponding to a product is known to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, Christopherson teaches that a web site can provide features of a product by presenting a list of the features, Christopherson: ¶ [0075]. One would have been motivated to use a feature list (as taught by Christopherson) in the safety features web page of Gorelick in order to provide a clear presentation of the features associated with the product.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device and method of Henkin in view of Rouhani-Kalleh wherein the at least one processor adds, in the display request page, a link to a page displaying, as a list, each subject to be displayed identified by the detected keyword, as taught by Gorelick in view of Christopherson.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to create better associations between keywords and available content corresponding to products and to provide an effective presentation of the available content (Henkin: abstract, ¶ [0038]-[0040]; Christopherson: ¶ [0075].).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented 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 DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights