DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendments, filed February 23, 2026, have been entered. Claims 1, 8, 12, 19, and 20 have been amended, claim 11 has been canceled, and claims 1-5, 8-10, 12-16, 19 and 20 are currently pending. The 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections of claims 8, 9, 11 and 19 are withdrawn based on amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pp. 7-9, filed February 23, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, in-part.
Applicant argues that Ma et al. (Patent No. US 9,342604 B2, hereinafter “Ma”) does not contemplate initial values corresponding to a subset of available search parameters, and instead appear to be plain-text requests rather than structured requested with defined search parameters (Remarks pp. 7-8). In response, examiner respectfully submits that using the broadest reasonable interpretation, the requests in the Ma (see Ma [Col. 2 lines 58-60], where the search request contains a query word) teach the recited search parameters (see Applicant’s Specification Fig. 10-20 in Drawings, and search parameters “10 Gbyte data”, i.e. query word).
Applicant also argues that Ma does not contemplate the generation of additional values corresponding to a further subset of search parameters (Remarks p. 8). In response, examiner respectfully submits that claim 1 recites “obtaining…one or more additional values…”, rather than generating them. Examiner additionally submits that the search history information associated with members in the relationship list discloses the additional values corresponding to an additional subset of search parameters (Ma [Col. 3 lines 32-40]).
Applicant further argues that neither Ma nor Stober et al. (Patent No. US 11,586,676 B2, hereinafter “Stober”) disclose the last limitation of claim 1, specifically that the references do not disclose an adapted search request including weighting factors for each of a plurality of values in the request (Remarks pp. 7-8). Examiner finds this argument persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ali et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0254217 A1, hereinafter “Ali”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Stober in view of Ali.
Regarding claim 1, Ma teaches:
receiving at a search provider computing device, from the client computing device, a search request comprising (i) one or more initial values corresponding to a subset of search parameters from a set of available search parameters, and (ii) technical data including an identifier associated with the client computing device (Ma – as shown in Fig. 1, at step s1100, a collaborative search system (i.e. search provider computing device) receives a search request (i.e. initial values) of a mobile terminal, which includes an identifier of the mobile terminal (i.e. technical data) [Col. 2 lines 52-67]. The identifier of the mobile terminal can be a mobile phone number of the mobile terminal [Col. 6 lines 50-53]. Examiner notes that Applicant’s Specification does not recite “initial values”.)
at the search provider computing device using the identifier, requesting, from one or more third-party platforms having communicated with the client computing device before receipt of the search request by the search provider computing device, context data corresponding to the client computing device (Ma – at step s1300, the collaborative search system obtains a relationship list (i.e. context data) associated with the identifier of the mobile terminal [Col. 2 lines 65-67]. The collaborative search system first extracts the identifier of the mobile terminal from the search request of the mobile terminal. Then, the collaborative search system sends the extracted identifier to a telecommunication service operator server. The telecommunication service operator server retrieves the call records of the mobile terminal based on the identifier (i.e. call records stored before receipt of the search request), and sends the call records of the mobile terminal to the collaborative search system. The collaborative search system obtains the call records as the relationship list (i.e. context data) associated with the identifier of the mobile terminal [Col. 3 lines 9-19]. See third-party platforms in Fig. 5, 5100, 5200 [Col. 7 lines 50-58]. The collaborative search system can store the relationship list, and update the relationship list each time when obtaining the relationship list from a mobile terminal and/or a telecommunication service operator (i.e. before receipt of the search request).)
receiving the context data at the search provider computing device from the one or more third- party platforms; obtaining, at the search provider computing device based on the context data, one or more additional values corresponding to an additional subset of search parameters from the set of available search parameters (Ma – at step s1300, the collaborative search system obtains a relationship list (i.e. context data) associated with the identifier of the mobile terminal [Col. 2 lines 65-67]. The collaborative search system obtains the contact list and/or call records as a relationship list associated with the identifier of the mobile terminal [Col. 3 lines 6-8]. At step s1400, the collaborative search system obtains search history information associated with members in the relationship list based on the relationship list (i.e. additional values corresponding to an additional subset of search parameters) [Col. 3 lines 32-40].)
(i) the one or more initial values, (ii) the one or more additional values, (Ma - as shown in Fig. 1, at step s1100, a collaborative search system (i.e. search provider computing device) receives a search request (i.e. initial values) of a mobile terminal, which includes an identifier of the mobile terminal (i.e. technical data) [Col. 2 lines 52-67]. The identifier of the mobile terminal can be a mobile phone number of the mobile terminal [Col. 6 lines 50-53]. At step s1400, the collaborative search system obtains search history information associated with members in the relationship list based on the relationship list (i.e. additional search parameters) [Col. 3 lines 32-40].)
preparing a number of search results at the search provider computing device, based on [the adapted] search request; and returning the number of search results to the client computing device (Ma – at a third step, the collaborative search system re-ranks the documents numbers retrieved in the first step based on the clicking times of the documents being clicked. The collaborative search system returns the re-ranked search results to the mobile terminal [Col. 10 lines 13-15, 34-35].)
Ma does not appear to teach:
generating, at the search provider computing device, an adapted search request including
and (iii) respective weighting factors for each of the initial values and the additional values
adapted search request
However, Stober teaches:
generating, at the search provider computing device, an adapted search request including (Stober – in block 408, the search service obtains a rewritten search query by invoking an extended query rewriting component 152 with the current search query, the query context, the private portion of the user profile of the user who issued the current search query, and the public portions of the user profiles for the one or more search influencers [Col. 7 lines 57-62].)
adapted search request (Stober – in block 408, the search service obtains a rewritten search query by invoking an extended query rewriting component 152 with the current search query, the query context, the private portion of the user profile of the user who issued the current search query, and the public portions of the user profiles for the one or more search influencers [Col. 7 lines 57-62].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Ma and Stober before them, to modify the system of Ma with the teachings of Stober, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide more accurate search query results to a user.
Ma modified by Stober does not appear to teach:
and (iii) respective weighting factors for each of the initial values and the additional values
However, Ali teaches:
and (iii) respective weighting factors for each of the initial values and the additional values (Ali – see Fig. 6, where translation component receives a pair of related strings. Each pair comprises a first string and a second string, where the first string of each related string pair is a user search query extracted from user click log data, and the user click log data includes data for one or more search query sessions. Related string pairs are provided as inputs to statistical model translation model. One or more pairs of corresponding terms are identified by SMT model, each pair of corresponding terms including a first term from the first string and a second term from the second string. SMT model then calculates a probability of relatedness for each of the one or more pairs of corresponding terms. The probability of relatedness may be an average of probabilities receives for the same or similar two terms that are calculated from different string pair comparisons. The probability of relatedness stored in the query rewriting candidate database may be an average, weighted or unweighted, of calculated probabilities. In this way, weighting is accomplished by increasing the number of instances of the highly related string that are averaged to calculate the overall probability of relatedness for the two terms [0050-0052].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Ma, Stober, and Ali before them, to modify the system of Ma and Stober with the teachings of Ali, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to identify related strings for search query rewriting (Ali [0003].
Claims 12 and 20 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 2, Ma does not appear to teach:
wherein the identifier comprises user names and/or e-mail addresses and/or phone numbers and/or sessionIDs and/or browser cookies
However, Stober teaches:
wherein the identifier comprises user names and/or e-mail addresses and/or phone numbers and/or sessionIDs and/or browser cookies (Stober – the search service, using the extended query analysis and query enhancement component, records search queries and query context (e.g., headers and parameters from the search query request or parameters that may be related to the search query, such as a user name [Col. 4 lines 27-35].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Ma, Stober, and Ali before them, to modify the system of Ma, Stober, and Ali with the teachings of Stob, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide more accurate search query results to a user.
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 3, Ma teaches:
wherein the context data is further based on client-based requests received at third-party platforms and on corresponding responses and/or third-party technical data generated at the third-party platforms in response to the client-based requests (Ma - the collaborative search system can store the relationship list (i.e. context data), and update the relationship list each time when obtaining the relationship list from a mobile terminal and/or a telecommunication service operator [Col. 3 lines 20-31].)
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 4, Ma does not appear to teach:
wherein the search provider computing device and at least one of the third-party platforms belong to disjunct computing systems
However, Stober teaches:
wherein the search provider computing device and at least one of the third-party platforms belong to disjunct computing systems (Stober – Fig. 7 illustrates a computing environment 710 in accordance with certain embodiments. The computing environment may be a cloud computing environment, and computer node 712 is capable of being implements and/or performing any of the functionality set forth hereinabove [Col. 17 lines 9-19]. A computing node environment includes a distributed cloud computing environment [Col. 17 lines 23-32].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Ma, Stober, and Ali before them, to modify the system of Ma, Stober, and Ali with the teachings of Stober, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide more accurate search query results to a user.
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 5, Ma does not appear to teach:
wherein the disjunct computing systems comprise disjunct distributed computing systems and/or disjunct computing networks
However, Stober teaches:
wherein the disjunct computing systems comprise disjunct distributed computing systems and/or disjunct computing networks (Stober – Fig. 7 illustrates a computing environment 710 in accordance with certain embodiments. The computing environment may be a cloud computing environment, and computer node 712 is capable of being implements and/or performing any of the functionality set forth hereinabove [Col. 17 lines 9-19]. A computing node environment includes a distributed cloud computing environment [Col. 17 lines 23-32].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Ma, Stober, and Ali before them, to modify the system of Ma, Stober, and Ali with the teachings of Stober, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide more accurate search query results to a user.
Claim 16 corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 8, Ma does not appear to teach:
generating one or more further search parameters using machine-learning based algorithms; wherein the adapted search request further comprises the one or more further search parameters
However, Stober teaches:
generating one or more further search parameters using machine-learning based algorithms; wherein the adapted search request further comprises the one or more further search parameters (Stober – the search and ranking configuration includes one or more of the following: machine learning models or rules for determining the intent of the search query (which is later used for adapting the search query and/or the search results, i.e. further search parameters) [Col. 6 lines 16-17, 26-28].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Ma, Stober, and Ali before them, to modify the system of Ma, Stober, and Ali with the teachings of Stober, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide more accurate search query results to a user.
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 8 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 9, Ma does not appear to teach:
wherein the machine-learning algorithms use, for the generation of the further search parameters,
prior search results selected by the client from responses received prior to the reception of the search request
However, Stober teaches:
wherein the machine-learning algorithms use, for the generation of the adapted search parameters, (Stober – the search and ranking configuration includes one or more of the following: machine learning models or rules for determining the intent of the search query (which is later used for adapting the search query and/or the search results) [Col. 6 lines 16-17, 26-28].
prior search results selected by the client from responses received prior to the reception of the search request (Stober – either or both portions 210, 220 may store query data for the user, either gathering by the search service 130 by monitoring the user’s behavior and query history or entered by the user via a user interface [Col. 4 lines 60-63].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Ma, Stober, and Ali before them, to modify the system of Ma, Stober, and Ali with the teachings of Stober, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide more accurate search query results to a user.
Regarding claim 10, Ma does not appear to teach:
wherein preparing the search results comprises selecting one or more databases from a number of databases and transmitting the adapted search request to the one or more selected databases
However, Stober teaches:
wherein preparing the search results comprises selecting one or more databases from a number of databases and transmitting the adapted search request to the one or more selected databases (Stober – the search service provides functionality for searching for content items in structured data (e.g., a database) and unstructured data (e.g. text documents). In certain embodiments, the search service creates indexes 162, 164 by indexing content items (e.g. text documents) [Col. 4 lines 10-14]. In block 612, the search service executes (i.e. transmits) the rewritten search query to generate search results [Col. 13 lines 49-51].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Ma, Stober, and Ali before them, to modify the system of Ma, Stober, and Ali with the teachings of Stober, as indicated above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide more accurate search query results to a user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANJIT P DORAISWAMY whose telephone number is (571)270-5759. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571) 272-4098. 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.
/RANJIT P DORAISWAMY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights