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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14, filed 12/5/25, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-10 and 14-23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-10 and 14-23 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 on pages 14-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 14-23 with an earliest effective filing date of 4/15/22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pak et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0337201 published on 11/23/17) in view of Hotchkies et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,577,879 patented on 11/5/13).
With respect to claim 1, the Pak reference teaches a computer-implemented book search method, comprising:
receiving, at a client device, search content from a user of the client device (a user enters a query into a search box [paragraph 49]);
obtaining, at the client device and from a server device that is connected to the client device, a plurality of recommended book categories associated with the search content, and book information corresponding to respective recommended book categories (categories associated with the queried entity are identified [paragraph 57] and the entity can be a book [paragraphs 28 and 33]); and
generating a book aggregation card, according to the type of the search content, based on the respective recommended book categories and the book information; and
displaying, at the client device, a user interface comprising the book aggregation card on a search result page corresponding to the search content (the categories related to the entity are displayed with corresponding content recommendations for each category [Figure 1 and paragraph 30]).
The Pak reference does not explicitly recite identifying a type of the search content, the type of the search content comprising category search content and book search content, the category search content indicating a book category that is to be searched, and the book search content indicating a book that is to be search. The Hotchkies reference teaches identifying a type of the search content, the type of the search content comprising category search content and book search content, the category search content indicating a book category that is to be searched, and the book search content indicating a book that is to be search (a search query is received and items responsive to the query are identified [col. 10 line 56 to col. 11 line 10] a category relevant to the search query is identified [col. 11 lines 11-30] the search results and identified categories are returned for presentation [col. 11 line 50-59]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Pak with the category results of Hotchkies. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by providing them with additional relevant information for their search.
With respect to claim 2, the Pak and Hotchkies references teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. In addition, the Pak reference teaches that displaying the user interface comprising the book aggregation card on the search result page comprises: displaying the book aggregation card at a predetermined location of the search result page; and in the book aggregation card, displaying the respective recommended book categories in a navigation style or a list style, displaying a recommended book category among the respective recommended book categories in a first predetermined style, displaying further book categories among the respective recommended book categories in a second predetermined style, and displaying the book information corresponding to the recommended book category (the results are displayed in content recommendation categories [Figure 1] with different categories being displayed in different styles based on content type [paragraphs 65 & 67]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Pak with the category results of Hotchkies. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by providing them with additional relevant information for their search.
With respect to claim 3, the Pak and Hotchkies references teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Additionally, the Pak reference teaches that in response to the identified type of the search content being category search content, displaying the book aggregation card at the predetermined location of the search result page comprises: displaying the book aggregation card in a first area of the search result page, wherein the first area is a display area adjacent to the top of the page (the content recommendation categories are displayed at the top of the page [Figure 1 and paragraphs 65 & 67]); or in response to the identified type of the search content being book search content, displaying the book aggregation card at a predetermined location of the search result page comprises: displaying the book aggregation card in a second area of the search result page, wherein the second area is an adjacent display area arranged after an area where a book search result is located. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Pak with the category results of Hotchkies. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by providing them with additional relevant information for their search.
With respect to claim 4, the Pak and Hotchkies references teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as described above. In addition, the Pak reference teaches that after generating the book aggregation card based on the respective recommended book categories and the book information and displaying the book aggregation card on the search result page, further comprises: in response to a trigger operation on any of the further book categories among the respective recommended book categories, displaying the triggered further book category in the first predetermined style, displaying the untriggered further book categories and the recommended book category in the second predetermined style, and displaying the book information corresponding to the triggered further book category (content items can be selected [paragraph 68] and different categories can be displayed in different styles based on content type [paragraph 65 & 67]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Pak with the category results of Hotchkies. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by providing them with additional relevant information for their search.
With respect to claim 5, the Pak and Hotchkies references teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Additionally, the Pak reference teaches that the recommended book category is a primary book category or a secondary book category (content recommendation categories can be scored for sorting [paragraphs 61-63]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Pak with the category results of Hotchkies. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by providing them with additional relevant information for their search.
With respect to claim 6, the Pak and Hotchkies references teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. In addition, the Pak reference teaches that the recommended book category is determined based on at least one of a first book category, a second book category and a third book category; and the first book category comprises a book category to which a keyword corresponding to the search content belongs (categories associated with the queried entity are identified [paragraph 57]), the second book category comprises a book category with an overlap degree of books corresponding to the first book category reaching a predetermined threshold (categories with greater overlap are scored higher [paragraphs 61-63]), and the third book category comprises a book category extracted from book interaction behavior data corresponding to the search content (user actions can be used to identify content categories [paragraphs 50-52]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Pak with the category results of Hotchkies. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by providing them with additional relevant information for their search.
With respect to claim 7, the Pak and Hotchkies references teach all of the limitations of claim 6 as described above. Additionally, the Pak reference teaches that in response to the identified type of the search content being category search content, the first book category comprises a book category matched with a keyword contained in the category search content (keywords are used to identify the categories associated with the entity [paragraph 53]); or in response to the identified type of the search content being book search content, the first book category comprises a book category to which a category keyword corresponding to a book hit by the book search content belongs, and/or a book category corresponding to a book attribute of the book, wherein the book attribute includes at least one of author, chronological or event context corresponding to book content, book length and book status. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Pak with the category results of Hotchkies. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by providing them with additional relevant information for their search.
With respect to claim 8, the Pak and Hotchkies references teach all of the limitations of claim 6 as described above. In addition, the Pak reference teaches that the book interaction behavior data comprises at least one of a book category hit by continuously triggered category search content, a book hit by continuously triggered book search content (entities can be ranked/sorted based on the frequency with which they appear in search queries [paragraph 51 & 55]) and a book already read. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Pak with the category results of Hotchkies. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by providing them with additional relevant information for their search.
With respect to claim 9, the Pak Hotchkies references teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Additionally, the Pak reference teaches that the respective recommended book categories in the book aggregation card are ranked based on category relevance; and the category relevance is determined based on at least one of search frequency of the respective recommended book categories, an overlap degree of books between a recommended book category and other respective book categories (categories with greater overlap are scored higher [paragraphs 61-63]), and an associated search closeness between the respective recommended book categories, the recommended book category is one of the recommended book categories hit by the search content, and the other book categories are the recommended book categories except the recommended book category. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Pak with the category results of Hotchkies. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by providing them with additional relevant information for their search.
With respect to claim 10, the Pak and Hotchkies references teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Additionally, the Pak reference teaches that the book information comprises a book identifier; including a book picture and/or a book name (the information is the title of a book [paragraph 28]); or the book information comprises the book identifier and book interaction information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Pak with the category results of Hotchkies. Such a modification would have made the system more desirable to users by providing them with additional relevant information for their search.
With respect to claim 14, the limitations of claim 14 are merely the electronic device embodiment of claim 1 and claim 14 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 and claim 14 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to claim 15, the limitations of claim 15 are merely the electronic device embodiment of claim 2 and claim 15 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 are rejected in the analysis of claim 2 and claim 15 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to claim 16, the limitations of claim 16 are merely the electronic device embodiment of claim 3 and claim 16 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 16 are rejected in the analysis of claim 3 and claim 16 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to claim 17, the limitations of claim 17 are merely the electronic device embodiment of claim 4 and claim 17 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 17 are rejected in the analysis of claim 4 and claim 17 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to claim 18, the limitations of claim 18 are merely the electronic device embodiment of claim 5 and claim 18 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 18 are rejected in the analysis of claim 5 and claim 18 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to claim 19, the limitations of claim 19 are merely the electronic device embodiment of claim 6 and claim 19 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 19 are rejected in the analysis of claim 6 and claim 19 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to claim 20, the limitations of claim 20 are merely the electronic device embodiment of claim 7 and claim 20 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 20 are rejected in the analysis of claim 7 and claim 20 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to claim 21, the limitations of claim 21 are merely the electronic device embodiment of claim 8 and claim 21 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 21 are rejected in the analysis of claim 8 and claim 21 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to claim 22, the limitations of claim 22 are merely the electronic device embodiment of claim 9 and claim 22 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 22 are rejected in the analysis of claim 9 and claim 22 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to claim 23, the limitations of claim 23 are merely the nontransitory computer-readable medium embodiment of claim 1 and claim 23 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 23 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 and claim 23 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRIS E MACKES whose telephone number is (571)270-3554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-4:00 EST.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/KRIS E MACKES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153