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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19 March 2026 has been entered.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-14, 16-22 are pending.
Claims 5, 15 now canceled have been rolled into claims 2, 12 respectively.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 March 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 19 March 2026 introduces new issues of 35 U.S.C. 112 discussed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, applicant argues at page 7 of the response:
“independent claims 2 and 12 have been amended to recite in part "ranking, by the control circuitry, the plurality of interpretations of the ambiguous term based at least in part on a user preference indicated in a profile of a user associated with the query, wherein the user preference is based at least in part on monitoring consumption of one or more media assets by the user or one or more inputs received from the user." As such, Applicant submits that the amended claims in 2 and 12 do not merely recite an abstract idea that can be performed by the human mind at least because the amended claims rank the plurality of interpretations "based at least in part on a user preference indicated in a profile of a user associated with the query, wherein the user preference is based at least in part on monitoring consumption of one or more media assets by the user or one or more inputs received from the user." The amended claims therefore maintain or access a user profile and using monitored consumption and/or received inputs as a basis for ranking interpretations which are operations that are computer implemented and are not practically performed by the human mind as alleged by the Office Action”.
In response the examiner points out the amended features originally recited in claims 5, 15 now rolled into parent claims 2, 12 were not interpreted by the examiner as a mental process but mere insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Applicant cites Weisner case and argues at page 8 of the response:
“As amended, claim 2 likewise recites mechanism for prioritizing which interpretation and corresponding reply is presented by ranking the plurality of interpretations based at least in part on a user preference indicated in a profile of a user associated with the query, where the preference is based at least in part on monitoring consumption of media assets by the user and/or inputs received from the user, and the system then identifies a top-ranked reply and controls the presentation accordingly. In other words, rather than merely reciting an abstract result of providing more relevant replies, the amended claims provide a technique of how to prioritize results to a query by using user-specific preference information derived from behavior and/or inputs”.
In response the examiner is not persuaded. Note as written the limitations are recited in the alternatives. The claim merely recites “wherein the user preference is based at least in part on monitoring consumption of one or more media assets by the user or one or more inputs received from the user”. Recognizing user preference by the user input is not equivalent to a specific mechanism for improving search result prioritization as in Weisner court case.
For all the reasons discussed above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C, 103, applicant rehashes arguments that the examiner already fully addressed in the final Office action mailed 19 November 2025 that the references do not teach displaying only the top-ranked reply recited in claims 2, 12. The examiner is not persuaded and points out applicant seems to ignore the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art supposedly knows about the art and knows how to apply the principles taught by the references depending on circumstances and user/application requirements. The combination of Cucerzan/While teaches displaying a single URL first on the list of query result. The examiner maintains it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to limit display to only the top-ranked reply depending on requester's needs.
Applicant further argues at page 9 of the response:
“However, the "expand/collapse" detail control 1744 is expressly described as toggling "revealing and hiding information of answers associated with queries indicated in the previous query indicators 1725." See Jockisch [0272]. Thus, Jockisch's toggle manages the visibility of information for answers associated with previous queries, not "an option to further cause, in addition to the top-ranked reply, one or more other replies to the received query based on one or more lower-ranked interpretations of the identified ambiguous term, of the plurality of replies to the received query, to be provided for display," as recited by Applicant's claims, as amended”.
In response the examiner is not persuaded. Applicant seems to argue the references individually. Note the main reference Cucerzan teaches providing results to ambiguous queries terms. White complements by teaching displaying the top ranked results. Jockisch further teaches the option to expand/collapse results. It is the combination of the references that suggests the claimed features to one of ordinary skill in the art, not Jockisch alone. The now added limitation “based on one or more lower-ranked interpretations of the identified ambiguous term, of the plurality of replies to the received query, to be provided for display” is not discussed in the specification as originally filed.
Nevertheless in the context of multiple possible interpretations of search terms in a query and providing corresponding ranked results to the query based on a user, since ambiguous terms are interpreted with regard to the user preference and results differ depending on the interpretation, one or ordinary skill in the art would certainly be motivated to also provide for display replies to lower-ranked interpretations of the ambiguous term for users to choose.
Applicant again seems to ignore the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art supposedly knows about the art and knows how to apply the principles taught by the references depending on circumstances and user/application requirements.
Applicant presents no specific arguments regarding other claims.
For all the reasons discussed above, the examiner maintains the combination of the references of record teaches all the claimed limitations.
Regarding the non-statutory double patenting rejection of all pending claims, applicant merely requests reconsideration without presenting any arguments. Thus the non-statutory double patenting rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-14, 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification as originally filed does not discuss the now claimed “based on one or more lower-ranked interpretations of the identified ambiguous term”.
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 2-4, 6, 8-14, 16-22 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.
The specification as originally filed does not discuss the now claimed “based on one or more lower-ranked interpretations of the identified ambiguous term”.
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 2-4, 6, 8-14, 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
An analysis of subject matter patentability is presented below for independent claim 2.
Step 1: claim 2 recites a method thus is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 recites:
receiving a query identifying by a control circuitry an ambiguous term in a query, ranking, by the control circuitry, a plurality of interpretations of the ambiguous term; generating, by the control circuitry, a plurality of replies to the received query based on the plurality of interpretations of the identified ambiguous term; identifying, by the control circuitry, as a top-ranked reply a reply of the plurality of replies that is generated based on a top-ranked interpretation of the plurality of interpretations. These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components of "a user interface", "a control circuitry". That is, other than reciting "a user interface", "a control circuitry", nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, "identifying an ambiguous term ranking a plurality of interpretations. generating a plurality of replies... identifying a top ranked reply.. in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper looking at what is being requested in a query to identify possible meanings of an ambiguous term and providing a most appropriate response. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because although the claim recites the additional elements "providing for simultaneous display (i) only the top- ranked reply of the plurality of replies”, these limitations are at best mere presentation of analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “ranking based on user preference, the user preference is based on monitoring consumption of media assets by the user or inputs received from the user, providing for simultaneous display (ii) an option to further cause one or more other replies based on one or more lower-ranked interpretations of the identified ambiguous term, of the plurality of replies to be provided for display” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
Thus claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 3 merely adds the option is selectable to toggle between presentations, considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 4 merely describes what the user interface comprises, considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 6 merely further describes the ranking based on user preferences, considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 8 merely adds the output of only the top-ranked reply is based on user prior request, considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 9 merely adds querying a database storing a knowledge graph for determining the plurality of interpretations of the ambiguous term, considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 10 merely adds receiving user feedback and adjusting the weight between nodes of the knowledge graph, considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 11 essentially combines limitations of claims 3, 4 thus merely comprises insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). As shown above, although the dependent claims are more detailed than their parent claims, they do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of their parent claim. Note an abstract idea even when implemented using generic computer components of a user interface and control circuitry is not less abstract.
Claims 12-14, 16-21 merely recite limitations similar to claims 2-4, 6, 8- 11 in form of systems thus are non-statutory for the same reasons discussed in claims 2-4, 6, 8-11 above.
Claim 17 merely adds the query is a voice query, considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 22 merely further describes the generation of the knowledge graph, considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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) 2-4, 6, 8-14, 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cucerzan et al (US 20070214131), in view of White et al (US 20120158685), further in view of Jockisch et al (US 20150178392 A1), all of record in parent application 17209693 now U.S. Patent 12008056.
Regarding claim 2, Cucerzan substantially discloses a computer- implemented method comprising:
receiving a query, wherein the query is input via a user interface (Fig. 1 item 108);
identifying, by control circuitry, an ambiguous term in a query ([0007] query for "cat");
ranking, by the control circuitry, a plurality of interpretations of the ambiguous term ([0008});
generating, by the control circuitry, a plurality of replies to the received query based on the plurality of interpretations of the identified ambiguous term ([0008});
identifying, by the control circuitry, as a top-ranked reply, a reply of the plurality of replies that is generated based on a top-ranked interpretation of the plurality of interpretations ([0008]); and
the difference is Cucerzan does not specifically show:
based at least in part on identifying the top-ranked reply, providing for simultaneous display, via the user interface, by the control circuitry, (i) only the top-ranked reply to the received query, of the plurality of replies to the received query, and (ii) an option to further cause, in addition to the top- ranked reply, one or more other replies to the received query, based on one or more lower-ranked interpretations of the identified ambiguous term of the plurality of replies to the received query, to be provided for display.
However the method of Cucerzan clearly retrieves top-ranked results in response to an ambiguous term in the query ([0008], [0010], [0011]). Furthermore in the same field of endeavor, While teaches the concept of obtaining top-ranked result, re-ranking and placing a single URL first on a list of query results (White [0047], [0053]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to limit the top ranked result of Cucerzan to a single one as taught by White in order to quickly obtain the reply that most likely satisfies the requester's need;
Cucerzan/White further teaches:
the ranking is performed based at least in part on a user preference indicated in a profile of a user associated with the query; and the user preference is based on at least one of monitoring consumption of one or more media assets by the user or one or more inputs received from the user (White [0059[ click behavior).
Cucerzan/White does not specifically show an option to further cause in addition to the top-ranked reply, one or more other replies of the plurality of replies to the received query to be provided for display based on one or more lower-ranked interpretations of the identified ambiguous term.
However since ambiguous terms are interpreted with regard to the user preference and results differ depending on the interpretation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such features while implementing the method of Cucerzan/White in order to simultaneously provide to the user different results based on different interpretations of a search term.
Furthermore it is customary in the art as shown by Jockisch to provide users with options to display search results (see [0272]: toggle between revealing and hiding information of answers associated with queries);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such option while implementing the method of Cucerzan/White in order to present other replies to other interpretations of the ambiguous term for possible user's query intent.
Regarding claim 3, Cucerzan/While/Jockisch further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the option is selectable to toggle between a display of the one or more other replies of the plurality of replies and a display of only the top-ranked reply, of the plurality of replies to the received query, and the option (While [0053], Jockisch [0272]).
Regarding claim 4, Cucerzan/While/Jockisch further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the user interface comprising the top-ranked reply and the option further comprises the received query (White [0053], Jockisch [0272)]).
Regarding claim 6, Cucerzan/While/Jockisch further teaches the method of claim 2 wherein ranking the plurality of interpretations based at least in part on the user preference comprises:
determining, based on the user preference, that a genre of media assets is preferred by the user (White [0053]);
determining that an interpretation of the plurality of interpretations is associated with the genre (White [0053[); and
increasing a rank of the interpretation, to cause the interpretation to be the top-ranked interpretation of the plurality of interpretations (White [0054}).
Regarding claim 8, Cucerzan/While/Jockisch further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein providing for display only the top-ranked reply of the plurality of replies is performed based on receiving a prior indication from the user to generate for display only the top-ranked reply (White [0053]).
Regarding claim 9, Cucerzan/While/Jockisch does not specifically show the method of claim 2, wherein ranking the plurality of interpretations of the identified ambiguous terms further comprises determining the plurality of interpretations of the identified ambiguous term by querying a database storing a knowledge graph.
However Cucerzan clearly taches ambiguous queries ([0078] such as for "cat") and query terms of previous, current and/or next query are maintained and associated ([0041]),
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a database storing a knowledge graph of ambiguous terms while implementing the method of Cucerzan in order to maintain associated terms of previous queries and facilitate subsequent retrieval of related query terms.
Regarding claim 10, Cucerzan/While/Jockisch further teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising:
receiving user feedback on accuracy for the top-ranked reply generated based on the top- ranked interpretation (Cucerzan [0054]; and
adjusting a weight of an association between nodes in the knowledge graph based on the user feedback (Cucerzan [0010]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 11, Cucerzan/While/Jockisch further teaches or suggests the method of claim 2, further comprising:
receiving a selection of the option to further cause, in addition to the top-ranked reply, the one or more other replies to the received query, of the plurality of replies to the received query, to be providing for display (Cucerzan [0008], [0010], [0011], White [0047], [0053], Jockisch [0272)). based on the received selection, providing for display, in addition to the top- ranked reply:
the one or more other replies to the received query, of the plurality of replies to the received query (Cucerzan [0008], [0010], [0011], White [0047], [0053], Jockisch [0272]); and
an option to display only the top-ranked reply to the received query, of the plurality of replies to the received query (Cucerzan [0008], [0010], [0011], White [0047], [0053], Jockisch [0272]).
Claims 12-14, 16, 18-21 essentially recite the limitations similar to claims 2-4, 6, 8-11 in form of systems thus are rejected for the same reasons discussed in claims 2-4, 6, 8-11 above.
Regarding claim 17, Cucerzan/While/Jockisch does not specifically show the system of claim 12, wherein the query is a voice query.
However it is customary in the art for users to query by voice depending on user's device capabilities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include voice query in order to facilitate querying by users of devices capable to do so.
Regarding claim 22, Cucerzan/While/Jockisch further teaches or suggests the method of claim 9, wherein the knowledge graph is generated based on contextual elements provided by the query itself without accessing information external to the received query (Cucerzan [0044]).
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 2-4, 6, 8-14, 16-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12008056.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are mere broader versions or obvious variation/combination of the claims of the U.S. Patent.
Claim 2 of the instant application is a mere broader version of claim 3 of the U.S. Patent with the added “based on one or more lower-ranked interpretations of the identified ambiguous term” included in limitation (ii).
However since ambiguous terms are interpreted with regard to the user preference and results differ depending on the interpretation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include such features to claim 3 of the U.S. Patent in order to simultaneously provide to the user different results based on different interpretations of a search term.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 22 of the instant application merely recite the limitations similar to claims 2, 11, 5, 5, 7, 8, 9 with a slight difference in wording for example "in response to" in claims of the U.S. Patent is replaced by "based on” in the instant application, "generating" in the claims of the U.S. Patent is replaced by "providing" in the instant application. However their meanings are similar.
Claim 10 of the instant application is an exact duplicate of claim 10 of the U.S. Patent except for the dependency.
System claims 12-21 of the instant application similarly map to system claims of the U.S. Patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bernhardt et al (US 20140279993 A1) teach systems and methods for clarifying a computer user's intent with regard to one or more query terms of a search query are presented. Often, one or more query terms of a search query are ambiguous and/or unclear. As presented herein, upon identifying a query term in the search query that is unclear, clarification data is obtained and presented to the computer user by way of a clarification user interface. The computer user is able to identify one or more aspects of the computer user's intent, intent clarifications, with regard to the query term through the clarification user interface. Upon instruction by the computer user, the search query, along with the intent clarifications, is submitted to a search engine and the search results obtained from the search engine are presented to the computer user.
KURZION (US 20140149399 A1) teaches the method involves identifying a query submission in a session. Intent is associated with a session based on multiple query terms including an intent refining query term. The respective documents are identified and selected by users (1002) in multiple sessions associated with the intent with a higher or lower frequency when document is selected by users in multiple sessions not associated with the intent. The respective score of document is modified based on a confidence value. The search results including modified respective scores are ranked based on respective scores.
Azar et al (US 20100306215 A1) teach providing improved ranking of results to an online search-based query. One or more user types are identified for a search-based query, which may correspond to a number of user relevant results and which ones are selected. A user profile can be determined for the respective user types for the search-based query, which may identify a proportion of the users that belong to that type, and how many results are relevant to that type. A set of relevant results can be identified for the respective user types for the query, based on a number of results used by the user type. An improved ranking of the results can be determined for the query, from the one or more sets of relevant results, based on the user profiles and a desired user satisfaction metric for a desired number of users.
Brewer et al (US 20060161520 A1) teach a system and related techniques accepts user search or query terms over of the Internet or other network or connection. In addition to presenting regularly generated search results, according to embodiments of the invention the search engine and related logic may examine the search string for suggested refinements or improvements to the search terms, to attempt to derive improved results or results closer to the user's search intent. According to embodiments of the invention in one regard, the alternative search logic may attempt to extract related or more meaningful search terms from sources including past usage patterns by users, and other data. That alternative search logic may thus examine the user's search terms to determine a substring match to prior searches, for instance stored by the search host for all users. In embodiments, the alternative search logic may likewise present user search extensions or refinement paths selected by prior users running the same search, as an indicator of likely content or source relevance. In further embodiments, the alternative search logic may perform a reverse query lookup to trace queries which resulted in the same Web site or other hit, as the present search and present those other queries as possible alternatives for the user to pursue. These and other search refinements may be performed, taking advantage of usage patterns and other information to improve search quality beyond straightforward spelling-type correction.
NTOULAS et al (WO 2006113597 A2) teach a method of retrieving documents using a search engine includes providing a reverse index including one or more keywords and a list of documents containing the one or more keywords, the reverse index further including a measure of confidence (MOC) value associated with the one or more keywords. One or more query terms are input into the search engine. The query terms are disambiguated and a MOC value is associated with each meaning of the disambiguated query term. A list of documents is retrieved containing the query terms wherein the documents are initially ranked based at least in part on the MOC values of the keywords and query terms. The list of documents may be re-ranked based at least in part on the semantic similarity of each document to the disambiguated query terms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN T LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 M Bhatia can be reached at 5712723906. 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.
/UYEN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 28 April 2026
Prosecution Insights