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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 11/25/2025.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-13, and 15-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Double Patenting
3. 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" ranted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type 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 Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,995,090. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application 18676281
Patent US 11,995,090
Claim 1:
A computer implemented method for determining relevant electronic content
in response to a query, the method comprising:
receiving a query at a computer implemented search engine from a user device;
categorizing the query to identify one or more electronic content sources, wherein the
categorizing is dynamically performed, independent of user input, by a categorizing module communicatively coupled with the computer implemented search engine;
formatting the query according to one or more electronic content source specifies for the one
or more electronic content sources, wherein the formatting is performed, independent of user input, by a formatting module communicatively coupled with the computer implemented search engine;
transmitting the formatted query to the one or more electronic content sources;
receiving results in response to the formatted query from the one or more electronic content
sources, the results containing a response latency;
merging the results in response to the formatted query from the one or more electronic content sources based at least in part on one or more factors, wherein the one or more factors comprise one or more local ranking statistics that are computed at each of the one or more electronic content
sources; and
formatting the results for delivering to the user device.
Claim 1:
A computer implemented method for determining relevant electronic content in response to a query, the method comprising:
receiving a query at a computer implemented search engine from a user device; categorizing the query to identify via a taxonomy one or more electronic content sources, wherein the categorizing is dynamically performed, independent of user input, by a categorizing module communicatively coupled with the computer implemented search engine;
formatting the query to at least one language usable by the one or more electronic content sources, wherein the formatting is performed, independent of user input, by a formatting module communicatively coupled with the computer implemented search engine;
transmitting the formatted query to the one or more electronic content sources, wherein each of the one or more electronic content sources comprises a corresponding search module;
receiving results in response to the formatted query from the one or more electronic content sources, the results containing a response latency;
merging the results based at least in part on one or more factors, the one or more factors comprising one or more local ranking statistics that are computed at each of the one or more electronic content sources, the one or more local ranking statistics related to one or more terms associated with the formatted query; and
formatting the results for delivering to the user device.
Claim 13:
A computer implemented system for determining relevant electronic content in response to a query, the system comprising:
one or more processors communicatively coupled to a network, wherein the one or more
processors are configured to:
a receiving module for receiving receive, at a computer implemented search engine, a
query from a user device;
a categorizing module for categorizing categorize the query to identify one or more
electronic content sources, wherein the categorizing is dynamically performed, independent of user input, by a categorizing module communicatively coupled with the computer implemented search
engine;
a formatting module for formatting format the query according to one or more
electronic content source specifies for the one or more electronic content sources, wherein the formatting is performed, independent of user input, by a formatting module communicatively coupled with the computer implemented search engine;
a transmitting module for transmitting transmit the formatted query to the one or more
electronic content sources;
a merging module for merging merge the results in response to the formatted query
from the one or more electronic content sources based at least in part on one or more factors, wherein the one or more factors comprise one or more local ranking statistics that are computed at each of the one or more electronic content sources; and
a results module for formatting format the results for delivering to the user device.
Claim 14:
At least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to:
receive a query at a computer implemented search engine from a user device;
categorize the query to identify via a taxonomy one or more electronic content sources, wherein the categorizing is dynamically performed, independent of user input; format the query to at least one language usable by the one or more electronic content sources, wherein the formatting is performed independent of user input;
transmit the formatted query to the one or more electronic content sources, wherein each of the one or more electronic content sources comprises a corresponding search module;
receive results in response to the formatted query from the one or more electronic content sources, the results containing a response latency; merge the results based at least in part on one or more factors, the one or more factors comprising one or more local ranking statistics that are computed at each of the one or more electronic content sources, the one or more local ranking statistics related to one or more terms associated with the formatted query; and
format the results for delivering to the user device.
Claim 15:
A computer implemented system for determining relevant electronic content in response to a query, the system comprising:
a receiving module, of a computer implemented search engine, for receiving a query from a user device;
a categorizing module, communicatively coupled with the computer implemented search engine, for categorizing the query to identify via a taxonomy one or more electronic content sources wherein the categorizing is dynamically performed independent of user input; a formatting module, communicatively coupled with the computer implemented search engine, for formatting the query to at least one language usable by the one or more electronic content sources;
a transmitting module for transmitting the formatted query to the one or more electronic content sources, wherein each of the one or more electronic content sources comprises a corresponding search module;
a receiving module for receiving results in response to the formatted query from the one or more electronic content sources, the results containing a response latency;
a merging module for merging the results based at least in part on one or more factors, the one or more factors comprising one or more local ranking statistics that are computed at each of the one or more electronic content sources, the one or more local ranking statistics related to one or more terms associated with the formatted query; and
a results module for formatting the results for delivering to the user device.
Examiner’s Note
5. Preliminary mappings of some pertinent arts:
Formatted query (According to Google): “A formatted query primarily refers to a database query (usually in SQL) that has been restructured to enhance its readability and maintainability. This process applies a consistent style guide, making complex code easier for humans to understand and debug.”.
A meta search engine (According to Google): “A meta search engine (or search aggregator) is a tool that queries multiple search engines like Google, Bing, and others simultaneously, then compiles and presents the results in a single, unified list, without maintaining its own index of web pages. It acts as a middleman, sending your query to other search engines and applying its own algorithm to sort and display a broader, more comprehensive set of information from diverse sources.”
Does a meta search engine have to transform or format a search query? (According to Google): “Yes, a meta search engine must transform or format a user's query because it sends the same basic request to multiple different search engines (like Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo), each expecting queries in its own specific way, requiring the meta engine to adapt syntax, add special codes, or simplify queries to get results, then translate those disparate results back into a unified, single list for the user.”
Singhal, US 6,370,527, [Singhal: Abstract (“The meta-search engine apparatus sends search queries to a plurality of search engines and compiles the results obtained from each of these search engines into a single ranked list”)] [Singhal: Column 5, lines 1-10, and column 6, lines 1-14 (“However, the ranking criteria may include, for example, rankings obtained from the search engine devices 140-160, weighting factors assigned to the various search engines 140-160, the number of search engine devices 140-160 that return the source as a result of the search query, weighting of various sections of the search results, the weights assigned to the search results by the search engine devices 140-160, and the like”, i.e., local ranking(s) from various sources)] [Singhal: Column 6, lines 53-65 (“Optionally, rather than waiting for the search engine devices 140-160 to return the results, the meta-search engine device 130 may wait for a predetermined period of time and report only the search results returned during the predetermined period of time”, i.e., taking a response latency into consideration)].
Mukherjee et al, US 20050149496, [Mukherjee: Abstract and paragraph 50 (“context-sensitive federated search across multiple heterogeneous data sources in real-time” and “These search results are consolidated and formatted for presenting to the user. Further, the relevance of the sources to the input categories are automatically updated based on the result sets and user selections” and “Post-processing module 408 then merges the search results from multiple data sources and converts them to a presentable form for the user”)].
Doganata et al, US 20030220913, [Doganata: Paragraph 37 (“A query is sent to the query generator 120, which performs formatting specific to each of the information sources 180. Some information sources 180 may allow character strings to be sent to them as queries; other may require a specific format. The query generator 120 performs any needed formatting. Thus, the query generator 120 might create several different final queries 121, which are then directed to the appropriate information sources 180”)] [Doganata: Paragraph 53 (“During offline mode, the linguistic library 170 will pass keywords for each of the categories "computer language," "islands of indonesia," and "types of coffee" to the personal query manager 110, which will forward each set of keywords to query generator 120, which then formats each query appropriately for the adapters 135”, i.e., formatting and categorizing queries)].
Shu et al, US 20050114306, [Shu: Paragraphs 3, 33 and 45 (“Meta-search engines typically wait for a set amount of time to receive results from those individual search engines and then return those results to the user” and “the query specification and the WSPQ 212 waits a predetermined time to retrieve results or for the search services to return results”, i.e., taking response latency into consideration)].
Barnett, US 6,795,820, [Barnett: Abstract and column 5, lines 22-41 (“the query is transmitted to the search engines from the metasearch engine, and each search engine computes or retrieves previously-computed local statistics for those terms in its associated document collection. In the second phase, each search engine returns its local statistics”, i.e., local ranking)].
Spencer, US 5,826,261, [Spencer: Abstract (“information retrieval performance from multiple document databases by retrieving from the multiple document databases in response to a user query, a set of documents that globally satisfy the query, even though each database maintains independent document indices, term frequency information, and scoring functions”, i.e., local ranking and “the global relative significance, the individual document databases determine their query results, which are then merged into a global set of documents satisfying the query”)] [Spencer: Column 8, lines 19-41 (“receive back from the client computer 101 formatted search results.”, i.e., formatting the results for delivering to the user device)] [Spencer: Column 9, lines 15-33 (“the database management systems 104 could improve performance by caching their responses for a limited amount of time. In general, any type of underlying IPC protocol may be employed to exchange distributed messages between the client computer 101 and the database computers 102”, i.e., response latency)].
Ohtani et al, US 6,212,545, [Ohtani: Column 7, lines 15-24 (“when a user generates an inquiry, the inquiry is sent, like the advertisement, to an agent within a range of transmission corresponding to a cost, and the agent returns a result to the user within a time that the inquiry reaches the agent having the relevant data”, i.e., response latency)] [Ohtani: Colum 9, lines 60-67 through column 10, lines 1-4 (“when the returning format of the search result is generated corresponding to the search request. Thereafter, the agent ID in the final field of the Path is deleted each time the result passes the agent, and the returning format is transferred to the agent”, i.e., formatting the results for delivering to the user device)] [Ohtani: Column 12, lines 36-49 (“This information is then converted to an adequate format, and is then transferred to the information resource data control section 30 for the purpose of advertisement for propagation to the other agent”, i.e., formatting the query)].
Robbins, US 20020069194, [Robbins: Paragraphs 34-35 (“meta search extension 206 of FIG. 2, is designed to recognize a number of search categories 402. Examples of these search categories 402 include but are not limited to Books 402a, Records 402b, Movies 402c, and so forth. Corresponding to each search category 402 is a predetermined combination of search sites/engines”, i.e., categorizing the query for the one or more electronic content sources)].
Kincaid et al, US 20020169764, [Paragraphs 14 and 16 (“performing a domain-specific metasearch and obtaining search results” and “domain-relevant search engines”)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer (US 5,826,261), in view of Robbins (US 20020069194).
Claim 1:
Spencer suggests a computer implemented method for determining relevant electronic content in response to a query, the method comprising: receiving a query at a computer implemented search engine from a user device [Spencer: Abstract (“information retrieval performance from multiple document databases”)]. Spencer suggests formatting the query , wherein the formatting is performed, independent of user input,by a formatting module communicatively coupled with the computer implemented search engine [Spencer: Column 18, lines 8-29 (“One of the benefits of the present invention is that no meta-server or query router is required for implementation with the multiple document databases”, i.e., meta search engine)] [Google: Does a meta search engine have to transform or format a search query? (According to Google): “Yes, a meta search engine must transform or format a user's query because it sends the same basic request to multiple different search engines (like Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo), each expecting queries in its own specific way, requiring the meta engine to adapt syntax, add special codes, or simplify queries to get results, then translate those disparate results back into a unified, single list for the user.”. Spencer suggests transmitting the formatted query to the one or more electronic content sources [Spencer: Column 12, lines 49-63 (“The client computer 101 then analyses 303 the query by sending the query to each of the database computers 102”)]. Spencer suggests receiving results in response to the formatted query from the one or more electronic content sources, the results containing a response latency [Spencer: Column 9, lines 15-33 (“the database management systems 104 could improve performance by caching their responses for a limited amount of time. In general, any type of underlying IPC protocol may be employed to exchange distributed messages between the client computer 101 and the database computers 102”, i.e., response latency)]. Spencer suggests merging the results , wherein the one or more factors comprise one or more local ranking statistics that are computed at each of the one or more electronic content sources [Spencer: Abstract (“information retrieval performance from multiple document databases by retrieving from the multiple document databases in response to a user query, a set of documents that globally satisfy the query, even though each database maintains independent document indices, term frequency information, and scoring functions”, i.e., local ranking and “the global relative significance, the individual document databases determine their query results, which are then merged into a global set of documents satisfying the query”)]. Spencer suggests formatting the results for delivering to the user device [Spencer: Column 8, lines 19-41 (“receive back from the client computer 101 formatted search results.”, i.e., formatting the results for delivering to the user device)].
Robbins suggests categorizing the query to identify one or more electronic content sources, wherein the categorizing is dynamically performed, independent of user input, by a categorizing module communicatively coupled with the computer implemented search engine [Robbins: Paragraphs 34-35 (“meta search extension 206 of FIG. 2, is designed to recognize a number of search categories 402. Examples of these search categories 402 include but are not limited to Books 402a, Records 402b, Movies 402c, and so forth. Corresponding to each search category 402 is a predetermined combination of search sites/engines”, i.e., categorizing the query for the one or more electronic content sources)].
Both references (Spencer and Robbins) taught features that were directed to analogous art and they were directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data retrieving. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the teachings of Ohtani and Spencer before him/her, to modify the system of Ohtani with the teaching of Spencer in order to categorize search queries [Robbins: Paragraphs 34-35].
Claim 2:
The combined teachings of Spencer and Robbins suggest wherein the user device comprises one or more of an internet-enabled input device, an internet or voice-enabled mobile device, a voice-enabled input device, a computer, and a kiosk [Spencer: Figure 1].
Claim 3:
The combined teachings of Spencer and Robbins suggest wherein the one or more factors comprise one or more of global factors, local factors, editorial rating, response reliability, response latency, content relevance, content extensiveness or coverage, user preferences, usage statistics, query frequency, category frequency, distributor preferences, recommendation statistics, user-generated ratings, business relationships, user demographic characteristics, location, language, social networks, social groups, personalization characteristics, page size, graphic, text elements, source rating, reliability factor, latency factor, business rules, business relationships, demographic preferences, marketing goals, local ranking scores, source ordering values, source-specific general scores, source factors, result-based ranking, relevancy, accuracy, usage factors, statistics associated with results item textual or non-textual analysis, statistics associated with data or text mining analyses, statistics associated with data or textual clustering, statistics associated with non-textual pattern analysis, statistics associated with device specifics, and[[/or]] statistics associated with formatting specifications [Spencer: Abstract (“information retrieval performance from multiple document databases by retrieving from the multiple document databases in response to a user query, a set of documents that globally satisfy the query, even though each database maintains independent document indices, term frequency information, and scoring functions”, i.e., local ranking)].
Claim 4:
The combined teachings of Spencer and Robbins suggest wherein the query is classified into a category in one or more taxonomies or controlled vocabularies [Robbins: Paragraph 34 (“whereas search category "Record" 402b is predetermined to trigger submission of search queries to site/engine R1-Rn 404b, and so forth”, i.e., vocabularies)].
Both references (Spencer and Robbins) taught features that were directed to analogous art and they were directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data retrieving. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the teachings of Ohtani and Spencer before him/her, to modify the system of Ohtani with the teaching of Spencer in order to utilize vocabularies as categories [Robbins: Paragraphs 34-35].
Claim 5:
The combined teachings of Spencer and Robbins suggest dynamically computing the one or more local ranking statistics for each result related to one or more terms associated with the formatted query of the one or more electronic content sources [Spencer: Abstract (“information retrieval performance from multiple document databases by retrieving from the multiple document databases in response to a user query, a set of documents that globally satisfy the query, even though each database maintains independent document indices, term frequency information, and scoring functions”, i.e., local ranking and “the global relative significance, the individual document databases determine their query results, which are then merged into a global set of documents satisfying the query”)].
Claim 6:
The combined teachings of Spencer and Robbins suggest computing at least one global and/or one local statistic related to one or more content items in the results [[sets]]; determining one or more relevancy scores for the results [[items]] from the one or more electronic content sources in accordance with the at least one global and/or one local statistic; computing a normalization factor; normalizing the one or more relevancy scores in accordance with the normalization factor; and combining the results into a single results set based on an ordering determined by the normalization factor [Spencer: Abstract (“From the global relative significance, the individual document databases determine their query results, which are then merged into a global set of documents satisfying the query. The shared local relative significance information may be the inverse document frequency of each of a number of terms related to the query, or it may be the total frequency of each of such terms. The global relative significance may correspondingly be a global inverse document frequency, or a global term frequency from which the global inverse document frequency is calculated”)] [Spencer: Column 14, lines 11-30 (“directly from the term frequency, IDF in the inverted index 200 and normalization factor k from normalization table 217).”)].
Claim 7:
The combined teachings of Spencer and Robbins suggest storing results from each electronic content source in one or more caches; accessing the one or more caches to retrieve existing results; and formatting the retrieved existing results based on one or more query context parameters [Spencer: Column 9, lines 15-33 (“database management systems 104 could improve performance by caching their responses for a limited amount of time.”)].
Claim 8:
The combined teachings of Spencer and Robbins suggest wherein categorizing the query occurs dynamically at [[the]] a time the query is received [Robbins: Paragraphs 34-35 (“meta search extension 206 of FIG. 2, is designed to recognize a number of search categories 402. Examples of these search categories 402 include but are not limited to Books 402a, Records 402b, Movies 402c, and so forth. Corresponding to each search category 402 is a predetermined combination of search sites/engines”, i.e., categorizing the query for the one or more electronic content sources)].
Both references (Spencer and Robbins) taught features that were directed to analogous art and they were directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data retrieving. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the teachings of Ohtani and Spencer before him/her, to modify the system of Ohtani with the teaching of Spencer in order to categorize search queries [Robbins: Paragraphs 34-35].
Claim 9:
The combined teachings of Spencer and Robbins suggest identifying one or more duplicate [Robbins: Paragraph 48 (“the "non-duplicate" search results are included in accordance with the computed composite relevance values”)].
Both references (Spencer and Robbins) taught features that were directed to analogous art and they were directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data retrieving. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the teachings of Ohtani and Spencer before him/her, to modify the system of Ohtani with the teaching of Spencer in order to reduce data duplicates in search results [Robbins: Paragraph 48].
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is essentially the same as claim 1 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a program product rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is essentially the same as claim 1 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is essentially the same as claim 2 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 is essentially the same as claim 3 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is essentially the same as claim 4 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is essentially the same as claim 5 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 is essentially the same as claim 6 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is essentially the same as claim 7 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is essentially the same as claim 8 except that it sets forth the claimed invention as a system rather than a method and rejected under the same reasons as applied above.
9. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer (US 5,826,261), in view of Robbins (US 20020069194), and further in view of Ratnaparkhi (US 20050149504).
Claim 10:
The combined teachings of Spencer, Robbins and Ratnaparkhi suggest removing the one or more duplicate result items results according to one or more of user preference, device preference and distributor preference [Ratnaparkhi: Paragraph 29 and Abstract (“Any duplicates in the list are removed by retaining the higher ranked occurrence and deleting redundant occurrences”)].
Three references (Spencer, Robbins and Ratnaparkhi) taught features that were directed to analogous art and they were directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data retrieving. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the teachings of Ohtani, Spencer and Ratnaparkhi before him/her, to modify the system of Ohtani and Spencer with the teaching of Ratnaparkhi in order to remove data duplicates in search results [Ratnaparkhi: Abstract and paragraph 29].
Claim 11:
The combined teachings of Spencer, Robbins and Ratnaparkhi suggest retaining the one or more duplicate results according to one or more of user preference, device preference, and distributor preference [Ratnaparkhi: Paragraph 29 and Abstract (“Any duplicates in the list are removed by retaining the higher ranked occurrence and deleting redundant occurrences”)].
Three references (Spencer, Robbins and Ratnaparkhi) taught features that were directed to analogous art and they were directed to the same field of endeavor, such as data retrieving. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, having the teachings of Ohtani, Spencer and Ratnaparkhi before him/her, to modify the system of Ohtani and Spencer with the teaching of Ratnaparkhi in order to remove data duplicates in search results [Ratnaparkhi: Abstract and paragraph 29].
Pertinent Art
10. Gelfand et al, US 20160357756, discloses integrating search results of a local search engine with search results of a global generic search engine, wherein the process comprises: implementing, by a user, a key word search of a public search engine via a web browser; simultaneously automatically implementing the key word search of a private information source to locate at least one of user contacts and documents relevant to the key word search; scoring the at least one of the user contacts and the documents returned from the private information source for relevancy to the key word search; returning public search results to the user based on the key word search of the public search engine; and returning up to N most relevant of the at least one of the user contacts and the documents obtained from the private information source to the user in a side bar of the web browser adjacent to the public search results.
Brette et al, US 7962464, discloses federated search, wherein the detailed implementation comprises: receiving at a content management system that is organized by content item type a search query using a content type data to request one or more content items; translating the search query to search an internal repository; translating, using a configuration adapter, the search query to search an external content source that is not natively configured to provide content type data for content items; causing the search query to search the internal repository; causing the search query to search in the external content source; receiving a result associated with the search query of the internal repository, wherein the internal repository is organized by content item type; receiving at the content management system a result associated with the search query from a search of the external content source not natively configured to provide content type data for content items; and associating, using the configuration adapter, a content type with a content item included in the result based at least in part on an information associated with the result; and combining the result associated with the search query of the internal repository and the result associated with the search query of the external content source; and providing the combined results as organized by content item type; providing a content type aware content management service based at least in part on the content type associated with the content item, wherein the content type aware management service comprises one or more of the following: viewing the content item based at least in part on the content type, searching based at least in part on the content type, and displaying a search result based at least in part on the content type.
Singhal, US 6,370,527, discloses searching distributed networks using a plurality of search devices, wherein the detailed implementation comprises: submitting a query simultaneously to a plurality of search engine devices, the query including at least one search
term; receiving search results from the search engine devices, the search results including listings of sources containing the at least one search term, or a term or terms related to the at least one search term, wherein the listings of sources include at least one of a title and summary of each source; ranking the search results based on the occurrence of the at least one search term, or a term or terms related to the at least one search term, in at least one of titles and summaries of the search results; and compiling a single ranked list of the received search results, wherein the ranking step comprises generating scores for each source in the search results and sorting the search results into the single ranked list based on the generated scores, and if two or more sources have a same score, the ranking step further comprises calculating a secondary score for the two or more sources and the ranking of the two or more sources is based on the secondary score.
Mukherjee et al, US 20050149496, discloses context-sensitive federated search across multiple heterogeneous data sources in real-time, wherein the detailed implementation comprises: i. using statistical or mathematical models for analyzing patterns in the search query; and ii. identifying the current activity of the user, and the application within which the user is working; b. mapping the context of the search query to a set of search categories; c. identifying a plurality of data sources relevant to the identified set of search categories using source statistics information, the source statistics information comprising weighted relevance factors of each of the configured data sources with respect to various search categories; d. recommending data sources identified as relevant to the context of the search query to the user; e. registering user specified choices for determining the data sources to be searched subsequently; f. updating the source statistics information in accordance with user specified choices of data sources with respect to the search query categories; g. updating the source statistics information in accordance with relevance of search results returned by each of the searched data sources; and h. updating the source statistics information in accordance with implicit and explicit user feedback.
She et al, US 20050114306, discloses integrated searching of multiple search sources, wherein the detailed implementation comprises: accepting a question from a client; sending the question to a plurality of search services; receiving a plurality of results from one or more of the search services, wherein each of the results has an associated rank that is assigned by the search service from which the result is received; and adjusting the associated rank of at least one result based upon a weight for the search service that assigned the associated rank, wherein the weight is assigned by at least one of a client specification and a default weighting specification.
Barnett, US 6,795,820, discloses metasearch technique that ranks documents obtained from multiple collections, wherein the detailed implementation comprises: receiving a query string at a metasearch engine, and transmitting terms in said query to search engines associated with said document collections; at each search engine, dynamically computing local statistic related to said terms for the documents in a collection with which said search engine is associated, including a score normalization factor that comprises a mean document length for the documents in the collection, in response to receipt of said query, and providing said local statistics to the metasearch engine; computing at least one global statistic related to the documents in the meta collection, including a score normalization factor that comprises a mean document length for the documents in the meta collection, in response to receipt of said local statistics at the metasearch engine, and transmitting said global statistic to said search engines; determining relevancy scores for said documents at said search engines in accordance with said global statistic; normalizing said scores in accordance with said normalization factor for the meta collection; and providing references to documents in said meta collection in accordance said relevancy scores.
Halevy et al, US 20040153440, discloses a unified management of queries in a distributed environment that includes plurality of nodes interconnected through a communication network, wherein the detailed implementation comprises: i) in a query initiating node, placing a query in respect of at least one subject; ii) applying load balancing for determining at least one query processing node, and in the case that a query processing node being different node than the query initiating node, transmitting the query to the query processing node; iii) determining in the query processing node at least one remote node in the network, if any, such that the database of each one of said remote nodes stores information on at least one of said subjects, and transmitting the query, through said communication network, to said remote nodes; iv) each one of the remote nodes processing the query, giving rise to respective query results and transmitting the query results to said query processing node; v) the query processing node merging the query results received from said remote nodes into a complete merged query result; and vi) displaying at least part of said complete query result.
Mao et al, US 6,728,704, discloses merging result lists from multiple search engines, wherein the detailed implementation comprises: transmitting a query to a set of search engines; receiving in response to said query a result list from each search engine of said set of search engines, each result list including one or more entries; selecting a subset of entries from each result list to form a set of selected entries; assigning to each selected entry of said set of selected entries a scoring value according to a scoring function; assigning to each subset a representative value according to the scoring values assigned to its entries; and producing a merged list of entries in a predetermined manner based on the representative value assigned to each result list, wherein the representative value varies in accordance with predetermined manner.
Kadayam et al, US 20030212673, discloses accessing information from a plurality of searchable information sources, wherein the detailed implementation comprises: analyzing a user search query to determine a subject matter of the query; and selecting a sub-set of information from the plurality of information sources based upon the determined subject matter of the query. In further detailed embodiment, the analyzing step combines at least two methods of deriving the subject matter from the scarch query; and the method further includes the step of searching the information source(s) in the sub-set of information sources, substantially in parallel, for documents relevant to the search query. A system and method is also provided for searching a plurality of searchable information sources, where the information sources include at least one secure source. This method includes the steps of: (a) storing security credentials necessary for accessing the secure source; (b) accessing the secure source utilizing the stored security credentials; (c) accessing a non-secure source; (d) searching the accessed sources, substantially in parallel, for documents relevant to a search query; and (e) displaying results of the searching step.
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to [Hung D. Le], whose telephone number is [571-270-1404]. The examiner can normally be communicated on [Monday to Friday: 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached on [571-272-4080]. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, contact [800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000].
Hung Le
12/27/2025
/HUNG D LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161