DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application 18/637,069 filed on 04/16/2024.
In the instant application, claims 1, 9 and 16 are independent claims; Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending. This action is made non-final.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 04/16/2024 are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 8, 10-13, 15 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected based claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 16-20 cite “A computer-readable medium”. Applicant has failed to define or limit the claimed “computer-readable medium.” Therefore, it would be reasonable to interpret the claimed “computer-readable medium” to comprise a signal or a carrier wave; neither of which falls into one of the four statutory categories invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vaidyanathan et al. (“Vaidyanathan,” US 2012/0124035), published on May 17, 2012.
Regarding claim 1, Vaidyanathan teaches a method for scoping a search to a first domain associated with a guest application that is external to a second domain associated with a host application, the method comprising:
receiving, by the host application and at a first time, a search query via a search field displayed in a first portion of a graphical user interface that is managed by the host application (Vaidyanathan: ¶0028 and Fig. 2; the system level search UI is illustrated including two portions: a data entry portion 206 and an application identification portion 208. The user can enter various words, letters, symbols, characters, and so forth as search terms. Note: the system level search UI is associated with an application which may be interpreted as a host application. ¶0031; the currently active application refers to the application that is currently running in the foreground and is the application that the user can interact with);
determining, by the host application, that the guest application is currently managing a second portion of the graphical user interface at the first time when the search query is received (Vaidyanathan: ¶0034 and Fig. 4; screen display 402 displays a window 404 for a currently active application named “Movie Application”. Note: the location where the active application displaying is interpreted as a second portion. ¶0035 and Fig. 4; the applications identified in application identification portion 208 do not include the currently active application displayed in window 404. Alternatively, the applications identified in application identification portion 208 can include the currently active application displayed in window 404);
determining, by the host application, that the guest application has registered with a search handler exposed by the host application to enable the first domain associated with the guest application that is external to the second domain associated with the host application to be scoped for the search (Vaidyanathan: ¶0023 and 0042; the particular ones of applications 112 that are identified in the application identification portion are those applications 112 that have registered with the system level search module 118. ¶0046; the registered applications include registration information such as metadata describing the application, such as a particular application category that the application is classified as (e.g., game, music movie, publications, shopping, etc. Note: application category may be interpreted as domain. The application categories of the registered applications are interpreted as a first domain which is external from the domain of the system level application); and
in response to determining that the guest application has registered with the search handler, passing, by the host application, the search query to the guest application thereby enabling the guest application to render (Vaidyanathan: ¶0036 and Fig. 4; If the user were to select search button 212, then in response the search term currently entered in data entry portion 206 is sent to the application displayed in window 404), at a second time after the first time, a search results page for the search query via the second portion of the graphical user interface currently being managed by the guest application (Vaidyanathan: ¶0037 and Fig. 5; screen display 502 illustrates window 404 after the search term has been sent to the currently active window. The search result is displayed on the current active application).
Regarding claim 6, Vaidyanathan teaches the method of claim 1,
Vaidyanathan further teaches: wherein the first portion of the graphical user interface is limited to a search function that continues to be managed by the host application while the guest application is currently managing the second portion of the graphical user interface (Vaidyanathan: ¶0028; the user input is displayed in data entry portion 206 of the system level search UI. ¶0031-0034; the currently active application refers to the application that is currently running in the foreground and is the application that the user can interact with. Screen display 402 also displays a window 404 for a currently active application named “Movie Application”).
Regarding claim 7, Vaidyanathan teaches the method of claim 1,
Vaidyanathan further teaches: wherein the second portion of the graphical user interface is manageable by a plurality of different applications based on user input selecting a specific application and signaling a user intention to focus engagement on the specific application (Vaidyanathan: ¶0040; a user may select one of the applications in portion 208 to be a new active application).
Regarding claim 9, this claim is directed to a computing device comprising: a processing system; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions (see Fig. 13) for executing the method as claimed in claim 1. Claim 9 is similar scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is directed to a computing device comprising: a processing system; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions (see Fig. 13) for executing the method as claimed in claim 6. Claim 14 is similar scope to claim 6 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is directed to a computer-readable medium for executing the method as claimed in claim 1. Claim 16 is similar scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, Vaidyanathan teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 16,
Vaidyanathan further teaches: wherein: the first portion of the graphical user interface is limited to a search function that continues to be managed by the host application while the guest application is currently managing the second portion of the graphical user interface Vaidyanathan: ¶0028; the user input is displayed in data entry portion 206 of the system level search UI. ¶0031-0034; the currently active application refers to the application that is currently running in the foreground and is the application that the user can interact with. Screen display 402 also displays a window 404 for a currently active application named “Movie Application”); and the second portion of the graphical user interface is manageable by a plurality of different applications based on user input selecting a specific application and signaling a user intention to focus engagement on the specific application (Vaidyanathan: ¶0040; a user may select one of the applications in portion 208 to be a new active application).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tam T. Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-5029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM - 5:00 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, William L. Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. 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.
/TAM T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174