DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-40 are pending in the Instant Application.
Claims 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 34, 37 and 40 are rejected (Non-Final Rejection).
Claims 22, 23, 26, 27, 31-33, 35, 36, 38, and 39 are objected to.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 January 2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 37, 39 and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17, 18 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,007,995. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the Instant Application are broader and would encompass the claims 17, 18 and 20 in U.S. Patent No. 12,007,995. The claims are mapped as follows.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,007,995
37. A method comprising:
storing a set of predetermined features in a database;
predicting, as part of a set of predicted query values, one or more query values that do not correspond with the set of predetermined features stored in the database;
obtaining, via a first message from a client computing device over a network, a first query value and an indicated value indicating multiple query values of the set of predicted query values comprising the one or more query values;
generating a set of queries based on the first query value and the multiple query values obtained using the indicated value and
sending, via a second message to the client computing device over a network, a value of a record to the client computing device.
17. A method comprising: obtaining a set of event values from an application executing on a client computing device;
searching a first database based on the set of event values to select a set of event types, the searching comprising selecting the set of event types such that each criterion of a set of criteria associated with the set of event types is satisfied by at least one value of the set of event values; sending, via a first message, a set of predicted query values associated with the set of event types to the application, the application comprising instructions to:
obtain a first query value and the set of predicted query values via the application; generate a second message comprising the first query value and an indicator that the set of predicted query values is entered into the application; obtaining, via the second message, the first query value and the indicator;
generating a combined query comprising the first query value and the set of predicted query values based on the indicator;
retrieving a record from a second database based on the combined query; and
sending, via a third message, a value of the record to the client computing device.
38. The method of claim 37,further comprising: obtaining a set of query parameters via a set of user interface elements of an application; obtaining a set of gaze locations indicating positions of a human eye on the application; and predicting the multiple query values based on the set of gaze locations and the set of query parameters..
18. The method of claim 17, wherein: obtaining the set of event values comprises obtaining a first subset of event values and obtaining a second subset of event values that is different from the first subset of event values; obtaining the first subset of event values comprises obtaining a set of query parameters via a set of user interface elements of the application; and obtaining the second subset of event values comprises obtaining a set of gaze locations indicating positions of a human eye on the application.
40. The method of claim 37, further comprising:
determining that a first terminal node of a second set of event types is associated with a first record within a database, wherein the second set of event types is selected based on a second set of event values; determining whether a second terminal node of a third set of event types is associated with the first record,
wherein the third set of event types is selected based on a third set of event values; in response to a
determination that the second terminal node is associated with the first record, determining a set of shared event values between the second set of event values and the third set of event values; predicting the multiple query values based on a first set of event types derived from the set of shared event values.
20. The method of claim 17, wherein the set of event values is a first set of event values, and wherein the set of event types is a first set of event types, the method further comprising:
determining that a first terminal node of a second set of event types is associated with a first record of the first database, wherein the second set of event types is selected based on a second set of event values; determining a result indicating that a second terminal node of a third set of event types is associated with the first record,
wherein the third set of event types is selected based on a third set of event values;
determining a set of shared event values between the second set of event values and the third set of event values based on the result; and generating the first set of event types based on the set of shared event values.
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.
Claims 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 34, 37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Hajji et al. (“Hajji”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0371931.
As per claim 21, Hajji discloses a server system for reducing network resource utilization comprising a set of memory devices storing instructions and a set of processors configured to execute the instructions, the instructions comprising:
in connection with a predicted request associated with a client computing device ([0069] wherein it is predicted a user may request a receipt from a client device (POS terminal in the prior art)), storing multiple predicted query values of a set of predicted query values predicted based on a set of event values obtained from an application executing on the client computing device and a set of event types ([0068] wherein email addresses are stored as a set of auto-complete suggestions as described in [0069], which are queries predicated based on a set of event values on the client computing device and a set of event types, wherein each character typed is an event and the event type is finishing the email address);
obtaining, via a first message from the client computing device over a network, a first query value and an indicated value that represents the multiple predicted query values of the set of predicted query values ([0105] wherein tai is obtained as a first query value and it is followed by either an indicated value of “l” or “@”);
obtaining, via the indicated value, the stored multiple predicted query values ([0105] wherein either “tailor@company.com” or “tai@ecrebo.com” are received, both containing multiple predicted query values including the “@,” domain, and TLD);
generating, without obtaining the multiple predicted query values from the client computing device in connection with the predicted request, a set of queries based on the first query value and the multiple predicted query values obtained via the indicated value and sending, via a second message to the client computing device over a network, a value of a record retrieved using the set of queries ([0094]-[0095] wherein a set of queries is generated using the full email address without obtaining the multiple predicted query values from the client (filled in with autocomplete) since the queries stem from the client and sending the receipt back to the email address in a second message).
As per claim 24, Hajji discloses the system of claim 21, the instructions further comprising: accessing a user record associated with a user ([0021] wherein a user record is identified in a first user store); determining a user category based on the user record ([0023] wherein a user identifier category for user identifier data items is determined); and obtaining a plurality of event type sequences associated with the user category, wherein selecting an event type sequence comprises selecting the event type sequence from the plurality of event type sequences ([0098] wherein a plurality of email entry sequences associated with a user category are obtained based on the input email as described in [0105]).
As per claim 25, Hajji discloses one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, performs operations comprising:
in connection with a predicted request associated with a client computing device, obtaining, via a first message from the client computing device over a network, a first query value and an indicated value that represents multiple query values of a set of predicted query values ([0105] wherein tai is obtained as a first query value and it is followed by either an indicated value of “l” or “@”);
generating, without obtaining the multiple query values from the client computing device in connection with the predicted request, a set of queries based on the first query value and the set of predicted query values ([0094]-[0095] wherein a set of queries is generated using the full email address without obtaining the multiple predicted query values from the client (filled in with autocomplete) since the queries stem from the client and sending the receipt back to the email address in a second message); and
sending, via a second message to the client computing device over a network, a value of a record obtained using the set of queries ([0093]-[0094] wherein a client computing device is sent the most preferred value using the set of queries).
As per claim 28, Hajji discloses the one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 25, the operations further comprising:
determining a similarity value based a count of shared query parameters between a first query of the set of queries and a second query of the set of queries ([0105] wherein if the similarity leaves just one option, based on the count of shared parameters since no other selection provides more similarity based on count, for instance when “email address candidates of “tailor@company.com” and tai@ecrebo.com have been returned by the server, then the digital receipt client will complete the e-mail address input field with “tailor@company.com” when “tail” is typed in.”);
determining whether the similarity value satisfies a first threshold ([0105] determining if the threshold is reached i.e. that the similarity leaves just one option); and in response to determining that the similarity value satisfies the first threshold, assigning a first category value to the second query and searching a database by matching a first event type of a set of event types to the second query based on the first category value ([0094]-[0095] wherein a set of queries is generated using the full email address without obtaining the multiple predicted query values from the client (filled in with autocomplete) since the queries stem from the client and sending the receipt back to the email address in a second message).
As per claim 29, Hajji discloses the one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 28, wherein the similarity value is a first similarity value, the operations further comprising: determining a second similarity value based a second count of the shared query parameters between the second query and a third query of the set of queries; determining whether the second similarity value satisfies a second threshold; and in response to a determining that the similarity value satisfies the second threshold, assigning a second category value to the second query and searching the database by matching a second event type of the set of event types to the third query based on the second category value ([0091] wherein every time a user enters a character, the number of candidates is determined, and since the similarity threshold is based on the number of candidates satisfying the threshold (the threshold being only one candidate is left), wherein since the example has multiple characters, the first character would be the first similarity value, the second similarity value would be after the second character).
As per claim 34,Hajji discloses the one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 25, the operations further comprising: wherein: determining a set of predicted parameters comprises determining a predicted query based on a terminal event of a set of event types ([0091] wherein the terminal event is the determination that only a single email was possible), predicting at least one predicted query value represented by the indicated value obtained via the first message from the client computing device; and the first message comprises the predicted query([0094]-[0095] wherein a set of queries is generated using the full email address without obtaining the multiple predicted query values from the client (filled in with autocomplete) since the queries stem from the client and sending the receipt back to the email address in a second message).
As per claim 37, Hajji discloses a method comprising:
storing a set of predetermined features in a database ([0068] wherein email addresses are stored as a set of auto-complete suggestions as described in [0069], which are queries predicated based on a set of event values on the client computing device and a set of event types, wherein each character typed is an event and the event type is finishing the email address);
predicting, as part of a set of predicted query values, one or more query values that do not correspond with the set of predetermined features stored in the database ([0105] wherein either “tailor@company.com” or “tai@ecrebo.com” are received, both containing multiple predicted query values including the “@,” domain, and TLD, but are entered by the user and do not correspond to features of the database);
obtaining, via a first message from a client computing device over a network, a first query value and an indicated value indicating multiple query values of the set of predicted query values comprising the one or more query values ([0105] wherein tai is obtained as a first query value and it is followed by either an indicated value of “l” or “@”);
generating a set of queries based on the first query value and the multiple query values obtained using the indicated value([0094]-[0095] wherein a set of queries is generated using the full email address without obtaining the multiple predicted query values from the client (filled in with autocomplete) since the queries stem from the client and sending the receipt back to the email address in a second message);
and sending, via a second message to the client computing device over a network, a value of a record obtained using the set of queries ([0093]-[0094] wherein a client computing device is sent the most preferred value using the set of queries).
As per claim 40, Hajji discloses the method of claim 37, wherein the set of event values is a first set of event values, and wherein the set of event types is a first set of event types, the method further comprising: determining that a first terminal node of a second set of event types is associated with a first record within a given database ([0091] wherein the terminal event is the determination that only a single email was possible), wherein the second set of event types is selected based on a second set of event values; determining whether a second terminal node of a third set of event types is associated with the first record, wherein the third set of event types is selected based on a third set of event values; in response to a determination that the second terminal node is associated with the first record, determining a set of shared event values between the second set of event values and the third set of event values; and generating the predicting the multiple query values based on a first set of event types based on derived from the set of shared event values ([0091] wherein every time a user enters a character, the number of candidates is determined, and since the similarity threshold is based on the number of candidates satisfying the threshold (the threshold being only one candidate is left), wherein since the example has multiple characters, each added character would produce a set of event types in the form of different email addressed, wherein the shared event values are the matching elements between the entered email and the stored email addresses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajji in view of Vikhe et al. (“Vikhe”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0004751.
As per claim 30, Hajji discloses the one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 28, but does not disclose wherein: the set of event types is a first set of event types; the database is a graph database comprising a plurality of graph nodes representing the a set of event types, a set of graph edges between graph nodes, and category values for the set of graph edges; and searching the database comprises traversing at least one graph edge of the set of graph edges. However, Vikhe teaches wherein: the set of event types is a first set of event types ([0020] wherein each node represents an information event in the graph) ; the database is a graph database comprising a plurality of graph nodes representing the a set of event types, a set of graph edges between graph nodes ([0020] wherein a graph database with a global graph is described, which includes an event type as nodes and edges),, and category values for the set of graph edges; and searching the database comprises traversing at least one graph edge of the set of graph edges ([0055] wherein a user category is determined based on the user record by determining a subgraph of the user (wherein the category in the prior art is determining a situation that the user is in) and including the edges to determine the end of the user’s situation as described in [0035]).
Both Hajji and Vikhe describe inputting a query. One could use the method of matching a series of events in a query graph as in Vikhe with the query matching input in Hajji to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of select predictions based on input in Hajji with the matching of graph sequences as in Vikhe in order to be able to search millions of records quickly and quantify the similarity over multiple events.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22, 23, 26, 27, 31-33, 36 and 38 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claims 22, 26, 27 and 36 were provided in the previous office action from 8 May 2025. Claim 38 has been amended and a new reasons for indicating allowable subject matter has been included herein.
As per claim 23, the following limitations including, “… sending the set of predicted parameters causes the user interface to reconfigure the user interface into a second configuration such that a screen position of the user interface element in the second configuration is above the screen position of the user interface element in the first configuration,” are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior art on record.” Thus, the claim is objected to.
As per claim 31, the following limitations in including “…obtaining a second set of queries; determining whether the second set of queries satisfies a second set of criteria based on a plurality of sets of event types, wherein the plurality of sets of event types comprises the first sequence of event types; in response to a determination that the second set of queries satisfies the second set of criteria, generating a second sequence of event types based on the second set of queries; and storing the second sequence of event types in a given database,” are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior art on record.” Thus, the claim is objected to. Claim 32 is objected to as being dependent on claim 31.
As per claim 33, the following limitations in including “…determining that a first set of event types is a subgraph of a second set of event types and a third set of event types; generating a first association between a terminal event type of the first set of event types and a second event type of the second set of event types, wherein the first association is assigned a first weight; generating a second association between the terminal event type of the first set of event types and a third event type of the third set of event types, wherein the second association is assigned a second weight; and predicting the multiple query values based on the first weight and the second weight,” are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior art on record. Thus, the claim is objected to.
As per claim 38, the following limitations in including “…. obtaining a set of gaze locations indicating positions of a human eye on the application; and predicting the multiple query values based on the set of gaze locations and the set of query parameters,” are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior art on record.” Thus, the claim is objected to.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 34, 37 and 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM -6:00 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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571) 272-4085. 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.
/KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights