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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 7, 16, and 17 have been amended. Claims 2, 15, and 18-19 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-14, and 16-17 are pending and rejected in the application. This action is Final.
Arguments
Applicant Argues
In other words, the human-computer interaction process (1) involves using a target interface of an electronic device to receive a preset identification character entered by a current user; the human-computer interaction process (2) involves using an electronic device to detect the current target information entered by the current user; and the human-computer interaction process (3) involves using an electronic device to selectively push information (such as display or not displaying the search result) by the target interface in a display manner, based on the detection results obtained by the preset network model (i.e., whether the current target information meets the preset condition).
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 101 arguments have been considered and are persuasive. Thus, the 35 USC § 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant Argues
In other words, in Gao, the purpose of the detection is to determine whether the number of characters in the keywords entered by the user (which is or may be interpreted by the Office action as target information input by the user) is less than a set value, rather than to determine whether the preset identification character (such as "@") is entered to search another user or be used only as a character. Thus, the detection of the keywords in Gao does not constitute the detection of the target information as recited in amended claim 1. Therefore, Gao fails to disclose the above distinguishing technical features (i).
Examiner Responds:
Applicant’s argues, “Therefore, Gao fails to disclose the above distinguishing technical features (i)” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. GAO discloses executing a preset search logic based on the current target information to determine a search result, in response to the current target information not meeting the preset condition, wherein the preset condition is configured to distinguish whether the preset identification character is entered to search another user or is entered only as a character (page 2, the reference describes determining whether to start a search or edit the search elements based on preset conditions of characters entered in the interface. The system determines whether it is characters.). Here, Gao discloses detecting characteristics of user-entered input to determine whether the input is treated as target information for further processing. In Gao, the system analyzes the entered keyword against predefined criteria, including whether the input satisfies a preset condition (such as character count relative to a threshold), and based on that detection determines whether to perform a search operation or enter an editing state. Although Gao does not expressly detect a specific identification character such as “@,” the claims do not require detection of a particular symbol, but broadly recite detecting target information from user input. Gao’s determination of whether the input qualifies for a search function inherently identifies the input as target information, and thus meets the limitation of detecting target information as recited in amended claim 1.
Next, Applicant argues “Moreover, Gao does not disclose that the display of the already displayed search result can be conditionally canceled based on the result of the detection. That is, Gao also fails to disclose the above distinguishing technical features (ii).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gao discloses conditionally controlling the presentation of information based on the result of detecting characteristics of the user input. In Gao, once the system detects that the entered keyword does not satisfy the predefined condition (e.g., exceeds the character threshold), the system switches from a search state to an editing state, thereby discontinuing or replacing the previously presented search-related content with an input/editing interface. This change in system state inherently results in canceling or ceasing the display of search results that were previously displayed, based on the detection result. Accordingly, Gao teaches conditional cancellation of displayed search results in response to detection outcomes, and thus discloses the distinguishing technical feature (ii) as recited in the amended claim.
Next, Applicant argues “In other words, in Gao, there are also no triggering conditions for performing a detection and a search. It can be seen that Häusler and Gao, whether taken alone or in combination, fail to disclose the triggering condition (i.e., receiving the preset identification character (such as "@") entered by a user) recited in amended claim 1. Thus, both Häusler and Gao fail to provide a teaching for the above distinguishing technical feature (i), and even when Häusler and Gao are combined, those skilled in the art cannot arrive at the technical solution defined in amended claim 1.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Häusler expressly discloses a triggering condition for performing detection and search based on receiving a preset identification character, and Gao complements this disclosure by teaching detection-based control of search behavior. In Häusler, the system responds to the user’s entry of a special identification character (e.g., the “@” symbol) in a user interface by detecting that character and initiating a lookup or search for corresponding entities, thereby using receipt of the preset identification character itself as the trigger for detection and search processing (see, e.g., Fig. 3 and the associated description of entering the at-sign to invoke entity suggestions). Gao further teaches detecting characteristics of user input and conditionally initiating or terminating search operations based on detection results. When considered in combination, Häusler provides the explicit triggering condition of receiving the preset identification character, while Gao teaches detection-based control of search behavior, and thus the combination discloses the claimed triggering condition of receiving a preset identification character entered by a user, as recited in amended claim 1.
Next, Applicant argues “That is, in Weininger, the search result already displayed is hidden unconditionally, rather than being hidden conditionally based on the result of the detection. Thus, the way of hiding the search result already displayed in Weininger does not constitute the way of hiding the search result already displayed as recited in amended claim 1.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Weininger discloses removing previously displayed autocomplete suggestions from the user interface in response to user interaction that satisfies a predefined condition (e.g., selecting an autocomplete suggestion), which is inherently conditional on detection of the current input state rather than unconditional hiding at all times. In Weininger, upon receiving user input indicating interaction with a selected autocomplete cell, the system removes other autocomplete cells from display and presents new suggestions for the extended query (e.g., cells not selected are “not displayed” or are swept off the screen once the selected cell is acted upon), and this transition occurs because the input has changed in a way that meets the condition for updating the interface, i.e., the user has selected a suggestion or built an extended query fragment. The removal of previously presented suggestions in this context is not arbitrary but is triggered by the detection of a condition in the input—specifically, selection of a suggestion and formation of an extended query—which causes the interface to update and thus cancels the earlier display based on detection results, satisfying the conditional cancellation requirement recited in amended claim 1.
Next, Applicant argues “That is, Weininger fails to disclose the above distinguishing technical features (i) and (ii), and thus even when Häusler, Gao, and Weininger are combined, those skilled in the art cannot arrive at the technical solution defined in amended claim 1.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner explained above that the combination of Häusler, Gao, and Weininger disclose all elements in the technical features (i) and (ii). Thus, the combination of Häusler, Gao, and Weininger discloses all the elements in claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 9. 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Häusler et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2018/0302459; hereinafter: Häusler) in view of GAO Foreign Patent Publication (2010124509; hereinafter: GAO, in IDS dated August 14, 2024) and further in view of Weininger et al. U.S. Patent (8,601,019; hereinafter: Weininger)
Claims 1, 16, and 17
As to claims 1, 16, and 17, Häusler discloses an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors (paragraph[0085], the reference describes using processors.);
a storage device for storing one or more programs that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement an interaction method comprising (paragraph[0087], the reference describes using a processor and server to implement :
receiving a preset identification character entered by a current user on a target interface of the electronic device (Figure 3, paragraph[0050], the reference describes the user entering the at-sign (i.e., preset identification character, as claimed ) on the user interface.);
performing a real-time detection on current target information entered by a current user to determine whether the current target information needs a preset condition (paragraph[0050], the reference describes in real-time determining a user’s name (the current target information needs a preset condition, as claimed) after entering in the at-sign (i.e., preset identification character, as claimed ) on the user interface.);
display the search result at an associated location of the current target information on the target interface of the electronic device (Figure 9, paragraph[0074], the reference describes showing the results for the user to select from on the interface.);
Häusler does not appear to explicitly disclose
executing a preset search logic based on the current target information to determine a search result, in response to the current target information not meeting the preset condition, wherein the preset condition is configured to distinguish whether the preset identification character is entered to search another user or is entered only as a character;
canceling an execution of the preset search logic and a display of the search result already displayed on the target interface of the target interface of the electronic device, in response to the current target information meeting the preset condition.
However, GAO discloses executing a preset search logic based on the current target information to determine a search result, in response to the current target information not meeting the preset condition, wherein the preset condition is configured to distinguish whether the preset identification character is entered to search another user or is entered only as a character (page 2, the reference describes determining whether to start a search or edit the search elements based on preset conditions of characters entered in the interface. The system determines whether it is characters.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Häusler with the teachings of GAO to determine the whether to preform search functions which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Häusler with the teachings of GAO to efficiently provide a smart operating system based on keyword input (GAO: page 1).
The combination of Häusler and GAO does not appear to explicitly disclose canceling an execution of the preset search logic and a display of the search result already displayed on the target interface of the target interface of the electronic device, in response to the current target information meeting the preset condition.
However, Weininger disclose canceling an execution of the preset search logic and a display of the search result already displayed on the target interface of the target interface of the electronic device, in response to the current target information meeting the preset condition (Figure 2D, column 13, lines 52-60, the reference describes not showing the autocomplete words after selecting a terms and moving on to the next term.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Häusler with the teachings of GAO and Weininger to hide elements on the interface which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Häusler with the teachings of GAO and Weininger to efficiently provide an interface in which the user can easily select an autocomplete suggestion (Weininger: column 2, lines 35-38).
Claim 9
As to claim 9, the combination of Häusler and GAO discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Häusler further disclose wherein the displaying the search result at an associated location of the current target information on the target interface comprises:
displaying the search result at the associated location of an input area for the current target information, wherein the input area is configured to input the current target information(Figures 6 and 9, paragraph[0074], the reference describes showing the results for the user to select from on the interface.).
Claim 10
As to claim 10, the combination of Häusler and GAO discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Häusler further disclose, wherein the executing the preset search logic based on the current target information to determine the search result comprises:
searching for user information based on the current target information to obtain the search result comprising the user information (paragraph[0050], the reference describes finding a list of users.).
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Häusler et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2018/0302459; hereinafter: Häusler) in view of GAO Foreign Patent Publication (2010124509; hereinafter: GAO, in IDS dated August 14, 2024) and further in view of Weininger et al. U.S. Patent (8,601,019; hereinafter: Weininger) and further in view of Huang et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2022/0075941; hereinafter: Huang)
Claim 3
As to claim 3, the combination of Häusler, GAO, and Weininger discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the determine whether the current target information meets the preset condition comprises:
inputting the current target information into a preset network model to determine whether the current target information meets the preset condition through the preset network model.
However, Huang discloses wherein the determine whether the current target information meets the preset condition comprises:
inputting the current target information into a preset network model to determine whether the current target information meets the preset condition through the preset network model (paragraph[0048], the reference describes using an AI system (i.e., present network model, as claimed) to determining if a trigger is met.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Häusler with the teachings of GAO, Huang, and Weininger to use AI to determine autosuggestions which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Häusler with the teachings of GAO, Huang, and Weininger to efficiently provide auto-complete suggestion based on an improved metric (Huang: paragraph[0004]).
Claim 4
As to claim 4, the combination of Häusler, GAO, Huang, and Weininger discloses all the elements in claim 3, as noted above, and Huang further disclose wherein the preset network model is configured to determine whether the current user is based on the preset search logic (paragraph[0064]-paragraph[0065], the reference describes AI system configured to the user using the system.).
Claim 5
As to claim 5, the combination of Häusler, GAO, Huang, and Weininger discloses all the elements in claim4, as noted above, and Huang further disclose wherein the inputting the current target information into the preset network model to determine whether the current target information meets the preset condition through the preset network model comprises:
obtaining a determination condition based on the current target information (paragraph[0064]-paragraph[0065], the reference describes AI system determining if the suggested data presented to the user is rejected or accepted.); and
inputting the determination condition into the preset network model to determine whether the current target information meets the preset condition through the preset network model(paragraph[0064]-paragraph[0065], the reference describes AI system determining if the suggested data presented to the user is rejected or accepted. The user is able to accept the suggestion.).
Claim 6
As to claim 6, the combination of Häusler, GAO, Huang, and Weininger discloses all the elements in claim 5, as noted above, and Huang further disclose wherein the determination condition comprise at least one of:
a character comprised in the current target information (paragraph[0028], the reference describes the trigger determined in the keywords that were typed by the user. The Examiner interprets the claim as an optional limitation because of the “or” and only have to meet one of the limitations in the claim.); or
a total length of the current target information.
Claim 7
As to claim 7, the combination of Häusler, GAO, Huang, and Weininger discloses all the elements in claim 6, as noted above, and Huang further disclose wherein the inputting the determination condition into the preset network model to determine whether the current target information meets the preset condition through the preset network model comprises:
determining, through the preset network model, whether the character comprises a preset character, wherein the preset character is unrelated to the preset search logic(paragraph[0065], the reference describes the user clicking no if the data is unrelated.); and
determining that the current target information meets the preset condition, in response to the characters comprising the preset character (paragraph[0064], the reference describes the user clicking yes if the data is related and using the suggestion.).
Claim 8
As to claim 8, the combination of Häusler, GAO, Huang, and Weininger discloses all the elements in claim 6, as noted above, and Huang further disclose wherein the inputting the determination condition into the preset network model to determine whether the current target information meets the preset condition through the preset network model comprises:
determining whether the total length of the current target information reaches a threshold, wherein the threshold is determined based on the preset network model (paragraph[0028], the reference describes using the AI system using a threshold to determine the autocomplete suggestion.); and
determining that the current target information meets the preset condition, in response to the total length of the current target information reaching the threshold(paragraph[0028], the reference describes using the AI system using a threshold to determine the autocomplete suggestion. The reference considers the length of characters.).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Häusler et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2018/0302459; hereinafter: Häusler) in view of GAO Foreign Patent Publication (2010124509; hereinafter: GAO, in IDS dated August 14, 2024) and further in view of Weininger et al. U.S. Patent (8,601,019; hereinafter: Weininger) and further in view of Jain et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2015/0205822; hereinafter: Jain)
Claim 11
As to claim 11, the combination of Häusler, GAO, and Weininger discloses all the elements in claim 10, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose before an execution of the preset search logic:
determining a user with a frequency of interaction with the current user reaching a frequency threshold as a candidate user; and determining and displaying the search result based on the candidate user.
However, Jain discloses before an execution of the preset search logic:
determining a user with a frequency of interaction with the current user reaching a frequency threshold as a candidate user; and determining and displaying the search result based on the candidate user (paragraph[0111], the reference describes using a threshold to determine which user is suggested based on interactions.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Häusler with the teachings of GAO, Jain, and Weininger to use a threshold to determine which user to suggest which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Häusler with the teachings of GAO, Jain, and Weininger to efficiently input and maintain contact information in a database (Jain: paragraph[0004]).
Claim 12
As to claim 12, the combination of Häusler, GAO, and Weininger discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the executing the preset search logic to determine the search result comprises:
determining a user of which a user identification with a matching degree of the current target information greater than a preset threshold as a candidate user; and using the candidate user as the search result.
However, Jain discloses wherein the executing the preset search logic to determine the search result comprises:
determining a user of which a user identification with a matching degree of the current target information greater than a preset threshold as a candidate user; and using the candidate user as the search result (paragraph[0123], the reference disclose determining the if the user’s contact is above a threshold level (i.e., preset threshold, as claimed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Häusler with the teachings of GAO, Weininger, and Jain to use a threshold to determine which user to suggest which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Häusler with the teachings of GAO, Weininger, and Jain to efficiently input and maintain contact information in a database (Jain: paragraph[0004]).
Claim 13
As to claim 13, the combination of Häusler, GAO, and Weininger discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the executing the preset search logic to determine the search result comprises:
determining a plurality of users with user identifiers matching the current target information by degrees greater than a preset threshold as a plurality of candidate users; and
determining the search result based on frequencies of interaction between the plurality of candidate users and the current user.
However, Jain discloses wherein the executing the preset search logic to determine the search result comprises:
determining a plurality of users with user identifiers matching the current target information by degrees greater than a preset threshold as a plurality of candidate users(paragraph[0123], the reference disclose determining the if the user’s contact is above a threshold level (i.e., preset threshold, as claimed); and
determining the search result based on frequencies of interaction between the plurality of candidate users and the current user(paragraph[0111], the reference describes using a threshold to determine which user is suggested based on interactions.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Häusler with the teachings of GAO, Jain, and Weininger to use a threshold to determine which user to suggest which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Häusler with the teachings of GAO, Jain, and Weininger to efficiently input and maintain contact information in a database (Jain: paragraph[0004]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Häusler et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2018/0302459; hereinafter: Häusler) in view of GAO Foreign Patent Publication (2010124509; hereinafter: GAO, in IDS dated August 14, 2024) and further in view of Weininger et al. U.S. Patent (8,601,019; hereinafter: Weininger) and further in view of Jain et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2015/0205822; hereinafter: Jain) and further in view of Espenshade et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2015/0269175; hereinafter: Espenshade)
Claim 14
As to claim 14, the combination of Häusler, GAO, Weinger, and Jain discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the determining the search result based on frequencies of interaction between the plurality of candidate users and the current user comprises:
sorting the plurality of candidate users in a descending order of the frequencies of interaction; and
selecting a preset number of top-ranked candidate users as the search result.
However, Espenshade discloses wherein the determining the search result based on frequencies of interaction between the plurality of candidate users and the current user comprises:
sorting the plurality of candidate users in a descending order of the frequencies of interaction (paragraph[0120], the reference describes arranging the data in descending order.); and
selecting a preset number of top-ranked candidate users as the search result (paragraph[0045], the reference describes ranking in the items.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Häusler with the teachings of GAO, Weinger, Jain, and Espenshade to rank data in descending order which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Häusler with the teachings of GAO, Weinger, Jain, and Espenshade to efficiently interpret a user’s input query against a structured knowledge base (Espenshade: paragraph[0003]).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bells et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2010/0010815) teaches searching for usernames.
Final
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571) 270-0474. 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, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 December 26, 2025
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024