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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this office correspondence.
Content Specification Objection
The title of the invention, “SYSTEM AND METHOD”, is not descriptive. On the other hand, the instant application specification discusses system/methods apparatus for providing added descriptive or relatable content in search engine databases. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. The instant application specification recites in paragraph [0167]: “Such image is shown by way of example as "Selected", being related to link "https://www.Q123image0003".”
Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Priority
Priority acknowledgment is made for the instant application claiming a foreign Australian Provisional application number 2023902201, dated 9 July 2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 (and similarly claims 9 and 12), recites the following limitations: “A computer implemented method comprising: one or more processors configured to perform operations …” (Emphasis Added)
A method claim cannot directly "comprise" a processor; it should claim the steps or actions of a method, not structural components like a processor. While a method claim can involve a processor by referring to steps performed by it (e.g., "performing a calculation by one or more processors"), however a patent claim must be either an apparatus claim describing structures or a method claim describing actions, not a hybrid of both.
The aforementioned claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (for indefiniteness) as the claim combines a product (the processor) with method steps in a way that makes the claim's scope unclear, see MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II) (Indefinite Claims & Product/Process in the same claim).
For the purpose of application examination, and for example, the examiner will interpret this claim language to recite: “A computer implemented method, executed by one or more processors, comprising: …”
Independent Claims 9 and 12 recite similar limitations to claim 1, and therefore rejected for similar reasons as detailed above.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-11 and 13-20 are rejected as being dependent from rejected independent claims 1, 9 and 12, therefore reciting similar limitations as explained above.
Proper corrections are required.
Claims 3, 5-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The forementioned claims recite the claim limitations as follows:
Claim 3 recites the following limitations: “The method of claim 1, wherein an item or entity is registered in an account system with a term such as a wording reference indexed to the item or entity, wherein the term such as a wording reference is a match to the search query term.” (Emphasis Added)
The aforementioned claim language of “such as” when dealing with a wording reference leaves the examiner confused over the intended scope of this reference, hence the scope of the meets and bounds of the claim is not clear as which particular reference this term is identified with, which renders the scope of the aforementioned claim to be indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of application examination, the examiner will interpret this reference to recite “wherein the term is a wording …”
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 5 recites the following limitations: “The method of claim 1, wherein the search query term is auctioned, wherein the highest bidder wins the auction, and wherein the auction winner has the right to manage where the search term match is presented in respect of the search related material.” (Emphasis Added)
As highlighted above, claim 5 recites the following terms/limitation(s) – “the highest bidder ", “the auction” and “the auction winner”. In reference to claim 1, which claim 5 depends from, the aforementioned terms are not explicitly defined neither in claim 1 nor in claim 5 before being referenced in definitive form. Consequently, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms/limitation(s) in the claim language.
For the purpose of application examination, the examiner will use assume proper definition of these term was made and use a suitable rejection that meets the merits of this application.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 6 recites the following limitations: “The method of claim 5, wherein the auction is in real time.” (Emphasis Added)
As highlighted above, claim 5 recites the following terms/limitation(s) – “the auction”, wherein referencing to claim 5 and claim 1, which claim 6 depends from, the aforementioned term is not explicitly defined neither in claim 1 nor in claim 5 before being referenced in definitive form in claim 6. Consequently, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms/limitation(s) in the claim language.
For the purpose of application examination, the examiner will use assume proper definition of these term was made and use a suitable rejection that meets the merits of this application.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 7 recites the following limitations: “The method of claim 1, wherein the search query term and or matched term relates to any of: the auction winner; and or an item label, and or an entity title.” (Emphasis Added)
As highlighted above, claim 5 recites the following terms/limitation(s) – “the auction winner”, wherein referencing to claim 6, claim 5 and claim 1, which claim 7 depends from, the aforementioned term is not explicitly defined neither in claim 1, claim 5 nor claim 6 before being referenced in definitive form in claim 7. Consequently, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms/limitation(s) in the claim language.
For the purpose of application examination, the examiner will use assume proper definition of these term was made and use a suitable rejection that meets the merits of this application.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 8 recites the following limitations: “The method of claim 1, wherein the search query term and or matched term to that applies to any jurisdiction, which can include any geographical jurisdiction being made up off any number of places ...” (Emphasis Added)
The aforementioned claim language of “matched term to that applies to any …, which can include any …” when dealing with a matched term reference leaves the examiner confused over the intended scope of this reference, hence the scope of the meets and bounds of the claim are not clear as which particular reference this term is identified with, which renders the scope of the aforementioned claim to be indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of application examination, the examiner will interpret this reference to recite “matched term that applies to a geographical jurisdiction …”
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 9 recites the following limitations: “a method of a top-level domain system comprising at east: a term such as a search term connected via relationship with at least a part of a search related material.” (Emphasis Added)
The aforementioned claim language of “such as” when dealing with a search term reference leaves the examiner confused over the intended scope of this search term reference, hence the scope of the meets and bounds of the claim are not clear as which particular search term reference this term is identified with, which renders the scope of the aforementioned claim to be indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of application examination, the examiner will interpret this reference to recite “a search term connected via …”
Dependent claims 10-11 are rejected as being dependent from rejected independent claim 9, therefore reciting similar limitations as explained above.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 17 recites the following limitations: “The method of claim 1, wherein any combination or permutation of the elements and principles of design (as are known in the design industry) are used for any given embodiment, or any range of embodiments.” (Emphasis Added)
The aforementioned claim language of “any combination or permutation … (as are known in the design industry) are used for any given embodiment, or any range of embodiments” is a confusing and indefinite claim language. This claim does not specify any particular recitation from the specification of the instant application, which leaves the examiner confused over the intended scope of this this claim where the meets and bounds of the claim are clearly defined, which renders the scope of the aforementioned claim to be indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(d).
Furthermore, the examiner notes that MPEP in 2103 clearly states: “The claims define the property rights provided by a patent, and thus require careful scrutiny. The goal of claim analysis is to identify the boundaries of the protection sought by the applicant and to understand how the claims relate to and define what the applicant has indicated is the invention. Examiners must first determine the scope of a claim by thoroughly analyzing the language of the claim before determining if the claim complies with each statutory requirement for patentability. See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("[T]he name of the game is the claim.").
For the purpose of application examination, the examiner will use a suitable rejection that meets the merits of this application.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 18 recites the following limitations: “The method of claim 1, where any combination or permutation of any number of claims can be made with any number of other claims, creating the definition of new claims.” (Emphasis Added)
The aforementioned claim language of “any combination or permutation of any number of claims can be made with any number of other claims” are confusing and indefinite as this claim does not specify a particular claim to dependent from, which leaves the examiner confused over the intended scope of this this claim where the meets and bounds of the claim are clearly defined, which renders the scope of the aforementioned claim to be indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(d).
Furthermore, the examiner notes and the case the Applicant amends this claim, that the MPEP under 608.01(n) (“Dependent Claims”), clearly states that a claim or claims are objected to for Improper Multiple Dependency and require proper correction.
For the purpose of application examination, the examiner will use a suitable rejection that meets the merits of this application.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 19 recites the following limitations: “The method of claim 1, where the system and method as represented or described in any part of this specification.” (Emphasis Added)
The aforementioned claim language of “… in any part of this specification” is a confusing and indefinite claim language. This claim does not specify any particular recitation from the specification, which leaves the examiner confused over the intended scope of this this claim where the meets and bounds of the claim are clearly defined, which renders the scope of the aforementioned claim to be indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(d).
Furthermore, the examiner notes that MPEP in 2103 clearly states: “The claims define the property rights provided by a patent, and thus require careful scrutiny. The goal of claim analysis is to identify the boundaries of the protection sought by the applicant and to understand how the claims relate to and define what the applicant has indicated is the invention. Examiners must first determine the scope of a claim by thoroughly analyzing the language of the claim before determining if the claim complies with each statutory requirement for patentability. See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("[T]he name of the game is the claim.").
For the purpose of application examination, the examiner will use a suitable rejection that meets the merits of this application.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 20 recites the following limitations: “The method of claim 1, where the system and method as represented or described in any part of the figures or drawings.” (Emphasis Added)
The aforementioned claim language of “… in any part of the figures or drawings” is a confusing and indefinite claim language. This claim does not specify any particular recitation from the specification/drawings, which leaves the examiner confused over the intended scope of this this claim where the meets and bounds of the claim are clearly defined, which renders the scope of the aforementioned claim to be indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(d).
Furthermore, the examiner notes that MPEP in 2103 clearly states: “The claims define the property rights provided by a patent, and thus require careful scrutiny. The goal of claim analysis is to identify the boundaries of the protection sought by the applicant and to understand how the claims relate to and define what the applicant has indicated is the invention. Examiners must first determine the scope of a claim by thoroughly analyzing the language of the claim before determining if the claim complies with each statutory requirement for patentability. See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("[T]he name of the game is the claim.").
For the purpose of application examination, the examiner will use a suitable rejection that meets the merits of this application.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims are directed to a method and an apparatus for providing added descriptive or relatable content in search engine databases, and presenting the added descriptive or relatable content in knowledge panel search results.
Step 2A – Prong One – The claims recite an abstract idea
Independent claims 1, 9 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 (and similarly claims 9 and 12) recites: “a method of a search query term being matched in search related material, wherein the search query term is the same term, or matched term, present in at least some of the search related material”, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer” or “one or more processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, and given some information at hand, a person is mentally (or with the aid of pen and paper) capable of evaluating this information at hand to then compare this information against another set of information for a match, which is a mental process.
As explained above, a process of “search query term being matched …”is nothing more than an abstract idea. Consequently, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers an abstract idea that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and grouping of “Abstract Ideas”. Accordingly, the aforementioned claim(s) recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A – Prong Two - The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Furthermore, the aforementioned claims do not recite any additional limitations to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements recited in the aforementioned claim(s) are: “computer” and/or “one or more processors”. The additional elements of using a computer, storage device(s) and processor(s) to obtain information, analyze information, and manipulate information amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B:
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additionally, the “computer” and/or “one or more processors” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that are well-know and conventional and cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that any combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The aforementioned claims are is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Further, the aforementioned claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the matched term is a repeat of the search query term, or the matched term is a duplication of the search query term.” The recited language of “the matched term is a repeat of the search query term, or …”, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mere mental steps to evaluate information at hand against another set of information to produce an outcome, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Further, the aforementioned claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein an item or entity is registered in an account system with a term such as a wording reference indexed to the item or entity, wherein the term such as a wording reference is a match to the search query term.” Again, at this step, the recited language of “an item or entity is registered in an account system with a term such as …”, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mere mental steps to evaluate information at hand against another set of information to determine similarity/match, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Further, the aforementioned claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the search related material includes search results, which can include at least part of the material in a knowledge panel.” Again, at this step, the recited language of “the search related material includes search results, which can include at least part of the material …”, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mere mental abstraction step of information labeling, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Further, the aforementioned claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the search query term is auctioned, wherein the highest bidder wins the auction, and wherein the auction winner has the right to manage where the search term match is presented in respect of the search related material.” Again, at this step, the recited language of “wherein the auction winner has the right to manage where the search term match is presented in respect of the search related material …”, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mere mental steps to evaluate information at hand against another set of information to determine association based on some criteria, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5 and includes all the limitations of claim 5. Further, the aforementioned claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the auction is in real time” recite mere mental abstract step of a mere instruction being processed by a computer, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Further, the aforementioned claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the search query term and or matched term relates to any of: the auction winner; and or an item label, and or an entity title.” At this step, the recited language of “the search query term and or matched term relates to any of: the auction winner …”, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mere mental steps to evaluate information at hand against another set of information to determine association based on some criteria, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Further, the aforementioned claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the search query term and or matched term to that applies to any jurisdiction, which can include any geographical jurisdiction being made up of any number of places, which can include any of: a town; and or a city; and or a state; and or a country; and or more than one country; and or a continent; and or more than one continent; and or across the world.” Again, at this step, the recited language of “the search query term and or matched term to that applies to any jurisdiction, …”, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mere mental steps to evaluate information at hand against another set of information to determine association based on some criteria, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Further, the aforementioned claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the first information model comprises first metadata relating to at least one of: a name; a region; …”, which provides an abstract description/attribute related to information at hand, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 9 and includes all the limitations of claim 9. Further, the aforementioned claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the request comprises second metadata relating to at least one of: the name; the region; …”, which provides an abstract description/attribute related to information at hand, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Further, the aforementioned claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein any combination or permutation of the elements and principles of design (as are known in the design industry) are used for any given embodiment, or any range of embodiments.” At this step, the recited language of “wherein any combination or permutation of the elements and principles of design …”, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mere mental steps to evaluate information at hand against another set of information to determine similarity/match based on some criteria, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 18 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Further, the aforementioned claim recites the additional limitations of “where any combination or permutation of any number of claims can be made with any number of other claims, creating the definition of new claims.” At this step, the recited language of “where any combination or permutation of any number of claims can be made with …”, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mere mental steps to evaluate information at hand against another set of information to determine similarity/match based on some criteria, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 19 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Further, the aforementioned claim recites the additional limitations of “where the system and method as represented or described in any part of this specification.” At this step, the recited language of “where the system and method as represented or described …”, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mere mental steps to evaluate information at hand against another set of information to determine similarity/match based on some criteria, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Further, the aforementioned claim recites the additional limitations of “where the system and method as represented or described in any part of the figures or drawings.” At this step, the recited language of “where the system and method as represented or described in any part …”, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mere mental steps to evaluate information at hand against another set of information to determine similarity/match based on some criteria, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent claims 9 and 12 recite similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore rejected for the same reasons as explained above.
Dependent claims 10-11 and 13-16 recite similar limitations to claims 2-8 and therefore rejected for the same reasons as explained above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication (US 20160357868 A1) issued to Hong et al. (hereinafter as “HONG”).
Regarding claim 1, HONG teaches a computer implemented method comprising: one or more processors configured to perform operations including: a method of a search query term being matched in search related material, wherein the search query term is the same term, or matched term, present in at least some of the search related material (HONG Para. [0004]: “…, methods that include the actions of receiving a first search query from a user device; receiving search results for the first search query provided by a search engine, wherein each of the search results identifies a respective resource; determining from the search results that the first search query relates to a first entity of a first entity type; determining that one or more entities of a second entity type have a predetermined relationship with the first entity.”).
Regarding claim 2, HONG teaches the limitations of claim 1. Further, HONG teaches wherein the matched term is a repeat of the search query term, or the matched term is a duplication of the search query term (HONG Para [0004]: “determining from the search results that the first search query relates to a first entity of a first entity type; determining that one or more entities of a second entity type have a predetermined relationship with the first entity.”; and
Para. [0007]: “The first entity type can be the same as the second entity type.”).
Regarding claim 3, HONG teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Further, HONG teaches wherein an item or entity is registered in an account system with a term such as a wording reference indexed to the item or entity, wherein the term such as a wording reference is a match to the search query term (HONG Para. [0007: “…, accessing an index that maps each of a plurality of entities to one or more related entities and identifies a relationship between the entity and one or more related entities.”; and
Para. [0008]: “…, obtaining data identifying the first entity and the first entity type; obtaining data identifying the one or more entities of the second entity type and the relationship between the first entity and the one or more entities of the second entity type; and generating a mapping between the first entity and the one or more entities of the second entity type in the index”).
Regarding claim 4, HONG teaches the limitations of claim 1. Further, HONG teaches wherein the search related material includes search results, which can include at least part of the material in a knowledge panel (HONG Para. [0005]: “…, one innovative aspect of the subject matter described in this specification can be embodied in methods that include the actions of receiving a first search query from a user device; receiving search results for the first search query provided by a search engine, wherein each of the search results identifies a respective resource; determining from the search results that the first search query relates to a first entity of a first entity type; determining that one or more entities of a second entity type have a predetermined relationship with the first entity; and transmitting information identifying the one or more entities of the second type to the user device as part of a response to the first search query.”).
Regarding claim 8, HONG teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Further, HONG teaches wherein the search query term and or matched term to that applies to any jurisdiction, which can include any geographical jurisdiction being made up of any number of places, which can include any of: a town; and or a city; and or a state; and or a country; and or more than one country; and or a continent; and or more than one continent; and or across the world (HONG Para. [0019]: “FIG. 1 shows an example search results page.”; the examiner notes that HONG discloses in Fig. 1 a search result the displays a geographical location stating “Wales to Norwegian patents…” in response to a search query, see element 106 of Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, HONG teaches a computer implemented method comprising: one or more processors configured to perform operations including: a method of a top-level domain system comprising at least: a term such as a search term connected via relationship with at least a part of search related material (HONG Fig. 1, Para. [0025]: “FIG. 1 shows an example search results page 100 for a search query 102 “roald dahl.” The search results page 100 includes two search results 104 and 106 and names of related entities 108. The search results 104 and 106 and the names of related entities 108 are generated by a search system in response to the search query 102. The search system identifies the search results 104 and 106, for example, using conventional search techniques. The search system classifies the search query 102 as being directed to a particular entity, i.e., the author Roald Dahl, and returns names of related entities 108 that have a predetermined relationship with the particular entity, i.e., that are books authored by Roald Dahl, for presentation in the search results page 100. In the illustrated example, one of the criteria met by the search query 102 may be that one or both of the search results 104 and 106 generated by the search system in response to the search query 102 identify a resource that has been determined to be an authoritative resource for the author Roald Dahl. For example, one or both of the resources identified by the search results 104 and 106, i.e., the official web site of the author Roald Dahl and the Wikipedia page for the author Roald Dahl, may have been determined to be an authoritative resource for the author Roald Dahl. In response to the search query 102, the search system selects the names of the related entities that are to be returned, e.g., using an index that stores data identifying entities that have a relationship with the author Roald Dahl.”)
Regarding claim 10, HONG teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Further, HONG teaches wherein the search related material includes a term that is a fractal of the search term (HONG Para. [0005]: “determining that one or more entities of a second entity type have a predetermined relationship with the first entity; and transmitting information identifying the one or more entities of the second type to the user device as part of a response to the first search query.”; and
Para. [0009]: “…, ordering the one or more entities of the second entity type based at least in part on data that identifies, for each of the one or more entities of the second entity type, how frequently the entity is searched for by users after submitting a query directed to the first entity.”)
Regarding claim 11, HONG teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Further, HONG teaches wherein the at least a part of search related material includes a term that is the same term or matched term as the search term, wherein the connection between the search term and search related material is created by the same term being present in both, and wherein the relationship between the terms is that the term in the search related material is a fractal of the search term (HONG Para [0004]: “determining from the search results that the first search query relates to a first entity of a first entity type; determining that one or more entities of a second entity type have a predetermined relationship with the first entity.”; and
Para. [0007]: “The first entity type can be the same as the second entity type.”; and
Para. [0009]: “…, ordering the one or more entities of the second entity type based at least in part on data that identifies, for each of the one or more entities of the second entity type, how frequently the entity is searched for by users after submitting a query directed to the first entity.”).
Regarding claim 17, HONG teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Further, HONG teaches wherein any combination or permutation of the elements and principles of design (as are known in the design industry) are used for any given embodiment, or any range of embodiments (HONG Abstract: “Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for receiving a first search query from a user device; receiving search results for the first search query provided by a search engine, wherein each of the search results identifies a respective resource.”).
Regarding claim 18, HONG teaches the limitations of claim 1. Further, HONG teaches where any combination or permutation of any number of claims can be made with any number of other claims, creating the definition of new claims (HONG Abstract: “Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for receiving a first search query from a user device; receiving search results for the first search query provided by a search engine, wherein each of the search results identifies a respective resource.”).
Regarding claim 19, HONG teaches the limitations of claim 1. Further, HONG teaches where the system and method as represented or described in any part of this specification (HONG Abstract: “Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for receiving a first search query from a user device; receiving search results for the first search query provided by a search engine, wherein each of the search results identifies a respective resource.”).
Regarding claim 20, HONG teaches the limitations of claim 1. Further, HONG teaches where the system and method as represented or described in any part of the figures or drawings (HONG Abstract: “Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for receiving a first search query from a user device; receiving search results for the first search query provided by a search engine, wherein each of the search results identifies a respective resource.”)
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication (US 20200213347 A1) issued to KALININ (hereinafter as “KALININ”).
Regarding claim 12, KALININ teaches a computer implemented method comprising: one or more processors configured to perform operations including: a method of a domain name comprising a unique term that is indexed to at least a unique identifier (KALININ Para. [0169]: “…, the individual or legal entity to which the domain names are registered, is indicated for the registered domain names of the web resources; (iv) whether the domain names of the web resources are located at the same IP address; and (v) whether the links corresponding to the web resources have the same or similar single web resource index “URL” (for example, www.site.com and www.sile.com).”).
Regarding claim 13, KALININ teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Further, KALININ teaches wherein the domain name is a unique term and wherein the unique identifier has content indexed to it, or a corresponding unique identifier in a knowledge graph has content indexed to it (KALININ Fig. 3, Para. [0168]: “…, the method 400 proceeds to execution of step 420, wherein malicious web resources are identified in the plurality of web resources, and then to execution of step 430, wherein a set of additional web resources associated with each of the identified, in step 420, malicious web resources are identified.”; and
Para. [0169]: “…, the individual or legal entity to which the domain names are registered, is indicated for the registered domain names of the web resources; (iv) whether the domain names of the web resources are located at the same IP address; and (v) whether the links corresponding to the web resources have the same or similar single web resource index “URL” (for example, www.site.com and www.sile.com).”; and
Para. [0170]: “…, to determine a link between each pair of web resources including at least one of the set of additional web resources and a respective one of the identified malicious web resources associated therewith, at step 430, at least the following operations are performed, wherein: (i) creating a mathematical model in a form of a graph, wherein the vertices of the created graph correspond to a first web resource and a second web resource, and the graph edges are links between the first web resource and the second web resource based on a web resource parameter common for the first web resource and for the second web resource, …”).
Regarding claim 14, KALININ teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Further, KALININ teaches wherein content that is indexed to the unique identifier is any content and in any format (KALININ Fig. 3, Para. [0168]: “…, the method 400 proceeds to execution of step 420, wherein malicious web resources are identified in the plurality of web resources, and then to execution of step 430, wherein a set of additional web resources associated with each of the identified, in step 420, malicious web resources are identified.”; and
Para. [0169]: “…, the individual or legal entity to which the domain names are registered, is indicated for the registered domain names of the web resources; (iv) whether the domain names of the web resources are located at the same IP address; and (v) whether the links corresponding to the web resources have the same or similar single web resource index “URL” (for example, www.site.com and www.sile.com).”).
Regarding claim 15, KALININ teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Further, KALININ teaches where the domain name is registered in a registration system with at least the domain name comprising a unique term indexed to at least a unique identifier wherein the unique identifier optionally has content indexed to it, or a corresponding unique identifier in a knowledge graph has content indexed to it (KALININ Fig. 1, Para. [0048]: “…, a reference source 120 to web resources may be an antiphishing.org site with references to known malicious web resources, and reference source 130 to web resources may be an antifraud.org site with the references to known malicious web resources. …, all data streams transmitted from the reference source 120, and all data streams transmitted from the reference source 130 shall be associated respectively with a unique identifier assigned to the reference source 120 and a unique identifier assigned to the reference source 130, wherein the wherein computing device 200 described below shall be pre-programmed or configured to identify data streams from such sources of references, in particular from sources of 120, 130 references, based on their unique identifiers comprised in these data streams and previously known to computing device 200.”).
Regarding claim 16, KALININ teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Further, KALININ teaches comprising: one or more processors configured to perform operations including: a method of presenting search related material comprising: a knowledge system or database including items or entities; a domain name registration system or database; a search system; a search query; parsing a search query; checking a domain registration database for a domain name that is a unique term; if the domain name is registered in the database then retrieving the domain name and presenting it in a knowledge panel; and locating the unique identifier indexed to the domain name and then locating that unique identifier in a knowledge system or database and retrieving content indexed to the unique identifier in the knowledge system or database or knowledge graph and presenting that in a knowledge panel together with the domain name; or if the domain name is not registered in the domain name system or database then not presenting a domain name and corresponding content indexed to a unique identifier in a knowledge panel from the search query(KALININ Fig. 3, Para. [0168]: “…, the method 400 proceeds to execution of step 420, wherein malicious web resources are identified in the plurality of web resources, and then to execution of step 430, wherein a set of additional web resources associated with each of the identified, in step 420, malicious web resources are identified.”; and
Para. [0169]: “…, the individual or legal entity to which the domain names are registered, is indicated for the registered domain names of the web resources; (iv) whether the domain names of the web resources are located at the same IP address; and (v) whether the links corresponding to the web resources have the same or similar single web resource index “URL” (for example, www.site.com and www.sile.com).”; and
Para. [0170]: “…, to determine a link between each pair of web resources including at least one of the set of additional web resources and a respective one of the identified malicious web resources associated therewith, at step 430, at least the following operations are performed, wherein: (i) creating a mathematical model in a form of a graph, wherein the vertices of the created graph correspond to a first web resource and a second web resource, and the graph edges are links between the first web resource and the second web resource based on a web resource parameter common for the first web resource and for the second web resource, …”).
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 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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication (US 20160357868 A1) issued to Hong et al. (hereinafter as “HONG”), and in view of US Patent Application Publication (US 20070038604 A1) issued to Stienhans (hereinafter as “STIENHANS”).
Regarding claim 5, HONG teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, HONG does not explicitly teach wherein the search query term is auctioned, wherein the highest bidder wins the auction, and wherein the auction winner has the right to manage where the search term match is presented in respect of the search related material.
But STIENHANS teaches wherein the search query term is auctioned, wherein the highest bidder wins the auction, and wherein the auction winner has the right to manage where the search term match is presented in respect of the search related material (STIENHANS Para. [0047]: “…, a search function provider may offer new/different search functionality to search engine hosts using an auction based mechanism where the host with the best bid wins”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of HONG (disclosing methods for search system of related entities) to include the teachings of STIENHANS (disclosing methods for extensible search engine) and arrive at methods to search content including auction material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because by utilizing extending search functionality of a search engines, thereby allowing system users the flexibility to provide a search function associated with multiple type of entities, as recognized by (STIENHANS Abstract, Para. [0011]-[0016]. In addition, the references of SKOROPINSKI and STIENHANS teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to a similar field of endeavor of information search systems.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of HONG and STIENHANS teach the limitations of claim 5. Further, STIENHANS teaches wherein the auction is in real time (STIENHANS Fig. 3, Para. [0039]: “After receiving the affirmative response from the host, the provider may either provide the new search functionality in the form of the utility software to the host (step 330) or provide the host with an interface or linked connection to the provider's search functionality (step 340). The interface enables the host to communicate in real time with the provider's utility software so that the host can offer the new fu