DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/26/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections previously made and the amended claims filed on 2/2/2026 have been fully considered. In view of the claim amendment and upon further consideration, the rejections are being updated accordingly.
Claim objections
In view of the amendment filed, the objections as set forth in the previous office action are hereby withdrawn.
35 USC 102/103 Rejections
Applicant argued that the cited reference Tolkachev fails to the amended limitations, specifically amended limitations of “detecting whether content is input into the input zone and determining the current inquiry mode according whether content is input into the input zone” as recited in claim 1.
In response to the arguments, it is submitted that the claim does not define or limit what that “whether content is input into the input zone” of the state information be. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, that element of content may be any type of information that is part of the state information, including any indication information or data that indicates whether content is input into the input zone.
As shown by the Applicant, Tolkachev discloses identifying (i.e. detecting) state information represented by at least user’s query and context information in response to user interaction. Para [0060] of Tolkachev additionally discloses “receive user commands”, such commands or query are corresponding to whether content is input into the input zone as claimed since the command and/or query are directed to data content that is input into an input zone by an user, which leads to determining the current inquiry mode of context query processing in response to the commands or query received.
Hence for at least the rationale state above, it is submitted that Tolkachev properly discloses the cited amended limitations as recited in claim 1. See updated rejection below for detail.
Furthermore, it is submitted that all limitations in claims--including those in claims 2-20 and those not specifically addressed in the Applicant’s remarks--are properly addressed. The reason is set forth in the rejections; see below for detail.
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 an abstract without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 10 and 19 recite a mental process in the limitations of “…detecting state information … determining a current inquiry mode … updating an inquiry component style… determining a data inquiry result based on the determined inquiry mode and/or the content information, in response to receiving an inquiry …”. These limitations could be done mentally based on gathered information and evaluating the information. Mental process is directed to one of the abstract ideas groups as set forth by Prong One in Step 2A of the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The limitation of “...outputting the data inquiry result…” is directed to an insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A Prong Two, and also would be well-understood, routine, and conventional at Step 2B. This is nothing more than providing information, and does not provide any integration into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional elements (e.g. state information ) the state information comprises whether content is input into the input zone, content information of the input zone, text, data inquiry result) are directed to types of information materials, which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort design to monopolize exception, because the claimed steps could be performed in a same manner to achieve the same outcome with other types of information other than the ones being used in the claims. Hence, the claims do not include additional elements or the combination of the elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and fail to integrate the judicial exception into practical application according to Prong Two in Step 2A of the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance because the claimed elements or their combination do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, in view of Step 2B of the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it is determined that the computing elements (such as memory, processor, computer program, display) in the claims amount to no more than usage of a generic computing system having a generic computing components, which fails to provide an inventive concept or significantly more than abstract idea because the elements do not necessary improve the functional of a computing system or an improvement to a technical field since network computing is well known.
Dependent claims 2-6, 11-15 and 20 further recite the mental process include addition limitations with a series of determining steps, which could be done mentally based on gathered information and evaluating the information. The additional elements (e.g. a full scale inquiry, matching inquiry, the content, input style, data in a database) in the limitations are directed to types of information materials. The information materials which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort design to monopolize exception, because the claimed steps could be performed in a same manner to achieve the same outcome with other types of information other than the ones being used in the claims as stated above.
Dependent claims 7 and 16 further recites an additional limitation of “displaying the content information…” which is directed to an insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A Prong Two, and also would be well-understood, routine, and conventional at Step 2B. This is nothing more than providing information, and does not provide any integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 8 and 17 further recite the mental process include addition limitations with “…obtain all input instructions…determining the preset information…”, which could be done mentally based on gathered information and evaluating the information. The additional elements (e.g. all input instructions, preset information) in the limitations are directed to types of information materials. The information materials which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort design to monopolize exception, because the claimed steps could be performed in a same manner to achieve the same outcome with other types of information other than the ones being used in the claims as stated above.
Dependent claims 9 and 18 further recites the mental process include addition limitations with “…determining whether a database corresponding to.…determining the input style…”, which could be done mentally based on gathered information and evaluating the information. The additional elements (e.g. target data, single-line input) in the limitations are directed to types of information materials. The information materials which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort design to monopolize exception, because the claimed steps could be performed in a same manner to achieve the same outcome with other types of information other than the ones being used in the claims as stated above.
Thus, for at least the reasoning above, the pending claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 10-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 19 each recites the limitation "the content" in the determining a current inquiry mode step. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Dependent claims 11-14 and 20 each is being rejected for incorporate the deficiency of the claim it is depending on.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tolkachev (Pub No. US 2013/0239006) in view of Mital et al (Pub No. US 2020/0159856, hereinafter Mital.
Tolkachev and Mital are cited in the previous office action.
With respect to claim 1, Tolkachev discloses a method of data inquiry (abstract), comprising:
detecting state information of an input zone in an inquiry component in a page, wherein the state information comprises whether content is input into the input zone, and content information of the input zone ([0009-0010], Fig 4-5 & 8 & 12-13: detect state information which is merely a type of information represented by elements such as but not limited to user query session or context information of an input zone/area of a page represented by an input interface such as an input webpage that interactive with an user. The state information includes different type of information, including whether the content information is input into the input zone via user interaction such as but not limited to informal query input determination or identification, and content information is merely a type of information—such as and not limited to interface information-- related to an input zone/area that the user interacts via context information, as further disclosed in [0048-0049], [0055-0056], [0059-0062], [0066], [0069]. );
determining a current inquiry mode based on whether the content is input into the input zone ([0049], Fig 4-5 & 12: determine a current inquiry mode, which is merely a state based on the state/context information, represented by a current state for query processing of a current session, based on user input determination or identification, such that it is determine a current mode is being determined as an query or inquiry mode in view of determine a data content indicating a query is being input via user interface, as further disclosed in [0059-0064], [0069], [0088]);
updating an inquiry component style on a display based on the determined inquiry mode ([0010], Fig 4-5 & 8 & 12: update the inquiry component style represented by the contextual session format on a display based on the session or context information for the user, wherein there are different types of display format for different respective mode as exemplary shown in Fig 10A-21A and further described in [0053], [0060-0062], [0064], [0066]);
determining a data inquiry result based on the determined inquiry mode and/or the content information, in response to receiving an inquiry instruction for the inquiry component ([0053], Fig 4-19: determine data inquiry result represented by the output based on the determine mode and/or content information represented by the state/context information in request the inquiry instruction via query processing, as further described in [0061-0062], [0067], [0070], [0089-0090]); and
outputting the data inquiry result via the display ([0049], Fig 4-19: output the data inquiry result represented via presenting the query output/result on the display of an user device, such as not limited the display shown in Fig 10A-21A, as further described in [0060-0062], [0090], [0099-0100]).
Tolkachev does not explicitly disclose the updating an inquiry component style comprising: updating a text in the inquiry component to represent the current inquiry mode as claimed.
However, Mital discloses updating an inquiry component style on a display based on the determined inquiry mode, comprising: updating a text in the inquiry component to represent the current inquiry mode ([0034-0037], Fig 2-5: updating an inquiry component style, which is merely an inquiry style, with updating the search style with AI based on the determined injury or searching mode that is user specific. The updating comprising updating a text in the inquiry to represent the current inquiry mode based on user input in the inquiry component of the search session, including and not limited to adding additional search term input by the user on a GUI display).
Since both Tolkachev and Mital are from the same field of endeavor because both are directed to inquiry processing to output inquiry result, which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine their teachings by updating an inquiry component style with updating a text in the inquiry component of Mital into Tolkachev to update inquiry component style on a display as claimed. The motivation to combine is to provide useful information to user in a user friendly and efficiently manner (Tolkachev, [007]; Mital, [0004]).
With respect to claim 10, Tolkachev discloses an electronic device (Abstract), comprising:
a memory (Fig 1-2);
a processor (Fig 1-2); and
a computer program stored in the memory (Fig 1-2), when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to perform a method comprising:
detecting state information of an input zone in an inquiry component in a page, wherein the state information comprises content information of the input zone ([0009-0010], Fig 4-5 & 8 & 12-13: detect state information which is merely a type of information—such as and not limited to user query session or context information-- of an input zone/area of a page such as a webpage that interactive with an user. The stated information includes content information, which is merely a type of information—such as and not limited to interface information-- related to an input zone/area that the user interacts via context information, as further disclosed in [0048-0049], [0055-0056], [0059-0062], [0066], [0069]);
determining a current inquiry mode based on whether the content is input into the input zone ([0049], Fig 4-5 & 12: determine a current inquiry mode, which is merely a state based on the state/context information, represented by a current state for query processing of a current session, based on user input determination or identification, such that it is determine a current mode is being determined as an query or inquiry mode in view of determine a data content indicating a query is being input via user interface, as further disclosed in [0059-0064], [0069], [0088]);
updating an inquiry component style updating an inquiry component style on a display based on the determined inquiry mode; based on the determined inquiry mode ([0010], Fig 4-5 & 8 & 12: update the inquiry component style represented by the contextual session format on a display based on the session or context information for the user, wherein there are different types of display format for different respective mode as exemplary shown in Fig 10A-21A and further described in [0053], [0060-0062], [0064], [0066]);
determining a data inquiry result based on the determined inquiry mode and/or the content information, in response to receiving an inquiry instruction for the inquiry component ([0053], Fig 4-19: determine data inquiry result represented by the output based on the determine mode and/or content information represented by the state/context information in request the inquiry instruction via query processing, as further described in [0061-0062], [0067], [0070], [0089-0090]); and
outputting the data inquiry result via the display ([0049], Fig 4-19: output the data inquiry result represented via presenting the query output/result on the display of an user device, such as not limited the display shown in Fig 10A-21A, as further described in [0060-0062], [0090], [0099-0100]).
Tolkachev does not explicitly disclose updating an inquiry component style on a display based on the determined inquiry mode, comprising: updating a text in the inquiry component to represent the current inquiry mode.
However, Mital discloses updating an inquiry component style on a display based on the determined inquiry mode, comprising: updating a text in the inquiry component to represent the current inquiry mode ([0034-0037], Fig 2-5: updating an inquiry component style, which is merely an inquiry style, with updating the search style with AI based on the determined injury or searching mode that is user specific. The updating comprising updating a text in the inquiry to represent the current inquiry mode based on user input in the inquiry component of the search session, including and not limited to adding additional search term input by the user on a GUI display).
Since both Tolkachev and Mital are from the same field of endeavor because both are directed to inquiry processing to output inquiry result, which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine their teachings by updating an inquiry component style with updating a text in the inquiry component of Mital into Tolkachev to update inquiry component style on a display as claimed. The motivation to combine is to provide useful information to user in a user friendly and efficiently manner (Tolkachev, [007]; Mital, [0004]).
With respect to claim 19, Tolkachev discloses a non-transient computer-readable storage medium (abstract, Fig 1-2), storing a computer instruction, which when executed, cause an electronic device to perform a method comprising:
detecting state information of an input zone in an inquiry component in a page, wherein the state information comprises content information of the input zone ([0009-0010], Fig 4-5 & 8 & 12-13: detect state information which is merely a type of information—such as and not limited to user query session or context information-- of an input zone/area of a page such as a webpage that interactive with an user. The stated information includes content information, which is merely a type of information—such as and not limited to interface information-- related to an input zone/area that the user interacts via context information, as further disclosed in [0048-0049], [0055-0056], [0059-0062], [0066], [0069]);
determining a current inquiry mode based on whether the content is input into the input zone ([0049], Fig 4-5 & 12: determine a current inquiry mode, which is merely a state based on the state/context information, represented by a current state for query processing of a current session, based on user input determination or identification, such that it is determine a current mode is being determined as an query or inquiry mode in view of determine a data content indicating a query is being input via user interface, as further disclosed in [0059-0064], [0069], [0088]);
updating an inquiry component style updating an inquiry component style on a display based on the determined inquiry mode ([0010], Fig 4-5 & 8 & 12: update the inquiry component style represented by the contextual session format on a display based on the session or context information for the user, wherein there are different types of display format for different respective mode as exemplary shown in Fig 10A-21A and further described in [0053], [0060-0062], [0064], [0066]);
determining a data inquiry result based on the determined inquiry mode and/or the content information, in response to receiving an inquiry instruction for the inquiry component ([0053], Fig 4-19: determine data inquiry result represented by the output based on the determine mode and/or content information represented by the state/context information in request the inquiry instruction via query processing, as further described in [0061-0062], [0067], [0070], [0089-0090]); and
outputting the data inquiry result via the display ([0049], Fig 4-19: output the data inquiry result represented via presenting the query output/result on the display of an user device, such as not limited the display shown in Fig 10A-21A, as further described in [0060-0062], [0090], [0099-0100]).
Tolkachev does not explicitly disclose updating an inquiry component style on a display based on the determined inquiry mode, comprising: updating a text in the inquiry component to represent the current inquiry mode.
However, Mital discloses updating an inquiry component style on a display based on the determined inquiry mode, comprising: updating a text in the inquiry component to represent the current inquiry mode ([0034-0037], Fig 2-5: updating an inquiry component style, which is merely an inquiry style, with updating the search style with AI based on the determined injury or searching mode that is user specific. The updating comprising updating a text in the inquiry to represent the current inquiry mode based on user input in the inquiry component of the search session, including and not limited to adding additional search term input by the user on a GUI display).
Since both Tolkachev and Mital are from the same field of endeavor because both are directed to inquiry processing to output inquiry result, which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine their teachings by updating an inquiry component style with updating a text in the inquiry component of Mital into Tolkachev to update inquiry component style on a display as claimed. The motivation to combine is to provide useful information to user in a user friendly and efficiently manner (Tolkachev, [007]; Mital, [0004]).
With respect to claims 2, 11 and 20, the combined teachings of Tolkachev and Mital further discloses wherein determining the current inquiry mode based on the whether the content is input into the input zone comprises: determining the current inquiry mode as an exploration mode for full-scale inquiry in response to determining that the state information indicates no content being input into the input zone (Tolkachev, [0059-0062], [0066], [0069], Fig 4-9; Mital, [0016-0019], [0035-0036], Fig 2-5: determine the current mode and an exploration mode, which is merely a name of a mode for inquiry/searching involving user input and context & session information corresponding to full-scale inquiry in response to determine that the state information indicates no content being input. Full scale inquiry is merely an inquiry that is being intended for the exploration mode. No content being input may be any type of content, not being inputted by a user as disclosed by Tolkachev. Also determine a current mode for full scale inquiry using AI as disclosed by Mital); and
determining the current inquiry mode as a search mode for matching inquiry in response to determining that the state information indicates content being input into the input zone (Tolkachev, [0010], [0049], [0059-0061], [0064], [0069], [0088], Fig 4-9 & 12; Mital, [0016-0019], [0035-0036], Fig 2-5: determine a current inquiry mode as a search mode which is merely a mode for searching/inquiring in response to determine indication of content being input, the content being input may be any type of content, including and not limited to user content with respect to searching context as disclosed by Tolkachev. Also determine a current mode as a search for matching with no AI, such as at an initial stage of the search session as disclosed by Mital).
With respect to claims 4 and 13, the combined teachings of Tolkachev and Mital further discloses wherein determining the data inquiry result based on the determined inquiry mode and/or the content information comprises: determining an input style of the content information in response to determining that the current inquiry mode is the search mode for matching inquiry (Tolkachev, [0048-0049], [0059-0064], [0067], [0070]; Mital, [0016-0019], [0035-0036], Fig 2-5: determine an input type representing the input style in response to determine the current inquiry mode is a directed to a searching process/mode for matching query correspond to the inquiry);
determining single-line content corresponding to each input line in the content information in response to determining that the input style is the multi-line input, and for each single-line content, determining the data inquiry result matching the single-line content (single line content is merely a content, multiple-line input is merely an input that may be more than one line; Tolkachev, [0048-0049], [0059-0064], [0067], [0070-0084]; Mital, [0016-0019], [0035-0036], Fig 2-5: determine content relevant/corresponding each input lime/field in response to a multiple-line input with multiple words/fields); and
determining the data inquiry result matching the content information in response to determining that the input style is the single-line input (Tolkachev, [0053], [0059-0062], [0067], [0070], [0089-0090], Fig 4-19; Mital, [0016-0019], [0035-0036], Fig 2-5: determine data inquiry result matching the content information in response the query, including the input is short with single line or with one or more fields/attributes).
With respect to claims 5 and 14, the combined teachings of Tolkachev and Mital further discloses wherein determining the data inquiry result based on the determined inquiry mode and/or the content information comprises: determining all of data in a database corresponding to the inquiry component to be the data inquiry result, in response to determining that the current inquiry mode is the exploration mode for full-scale inquiry (Tolkachev, [0059-0062], [0066], [0070], [0069], [0084-0090] Fig 4-9; Mital, [0016-0019], [0035-0036], Fig 2-5: determine inquiry result represented by the search result comprises determine the data of one or more relevant databases/source to identify relevant data, which corresponds to the exploration mode for full-scale inquiry as the searching is being performed via context, session, databases, and other factors as disclosed by Tolkachev and further include AI as disclosed by Mital in a complete full scale manner).
Claims 3, 6-9, 12, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tolkachev in view of Mital, as applied in claims 1 &10 above, and further in view of Ryger et al (Patent No. 10,031,913, hereinafter Ryger).
Ryger is cited in the previous office action.
With respect to claims 3 and 12, the combined teachings of Tolkachev and Mital further discloses wherein determining the current inquiry mode as the search mode for matching inquiry in response to determining that the state information indicates the content being input into the input zone comprises: determining an input style of the content information (Tolkachev, [0048-0049], [0059-0064], [0067], [0070]; Mital, [0016-0019], [0035-0036], Fig 2-5: determine an input type representing the input style in response to determine the current inquiry mode is a directed to a searching process/mode for matching query correspond to the inquiry); and
determining the search mode as the fuzzy search in response to determining that the input style is a single-line input (Tolkachev, [0073-0085]; Mital, [0016-0019], [0035-0036], Fig 2-5: determine the search mode as fuzzy search in response the input, and process the searching via fuzzy logic).
Neither Tolkachev nor Mital explicitly disclose wherein the search mode comprises accurate search and fuzzy search; and
determining the search mode as the accurate search in response to determining that the input style is a multi-line input.
However, Ryger discloses wherein the search mode comprises accurate search and fuzzy search (Col. 5, 1-15, Col. 10, lines 10-20: search mode comprises accurate search represented by non-fuzzy, and fuzzy search); and
determining the search mode as the accurate search in response to determining that the input style is a multi-line input (Col. 5, 1-15, Col. 33, lines 40-50: determine the search mode in response to the input, include multiline via multiple field each field is a line and/or phrases).
Since both Tolkachev, Mital and Ryger are from the same field of endeavor because all are directed to inquiry processing to output inquiry result, which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine their teachings by incorporate a search mode including a accurate non-fuzzy search techniques of Ryger into Tolkachev and Mital to determine search mode as claimed. The motivation to combine is to provide useful information to user effectively and efficiently (Tolkachev, [007]; Mital, [0004]; Ryger, Col. 1, lines 27-29, Col. 4 lines 9-19).
With respect to claims 6 and 15, the combined teachings of Tolkachev, Mital and Ryger further disclose wherein determining the input style of the content information comprises: determining the input style as the multi-line input in response to determining that the content information comprises a plurality of entries and a preset instruction is input between adjacent entries (Tolkachev, [0048-0049], [0059-0064], [0067], [0070]; Mital, [0016-0019], [0035-0036], Fig 2-5; Ryger, Col. 4, lines 40-48, Col. 5, 1-15, Col. 10, lines 10-20, Col. 33, lines 40-50, Fig 2B- 16: determine the input style including the multiline input in response to the entries and instruction provided, including and not limited to pluarty of related terms representing entries that guide the search process); and
determining the input style as the single-line input in response to determining that the content information comprises a single entry or that the content information comprises a plurality of entries and there is no preset instruction is input between adjacent entries (Tolkachev, [0048-0049], [0059-0064], [0067], [0070-0084]; Mital, [0016-0019], [0035-0036], Fig 2-5; Ryger, Col. 4, lines 40-48, Col. 5, 1-15, Col. 10, lines 10-20, Col. 33, lines 40-50, Fig 2B- 16: determine the input style including the multiline input in response to the one or more entries provided and no instruction, such as and not limited to context information inputted and/or AI generated input).
With respect to claims 7 and 16, the combined teachings of Tolkachev, Mital and Ryger further disclose wherein after determining the input style of the content information, the method further comprises: displaying the content information in the input zone line by line in response to determining that the input style is the multi-line input (Tolkachev, [0049], [0060-0062], [0090], [0099-0100],Fig 4-19; Mital, [0016-0019], [0035-0036], Fig 2-5; Ryger, Col. 4, lines 40-48, Col. 33, lines 40-50, Fig 2B- 16: display the content information via GUI in response to the input, including the input with multiple lines via multiple fields and/or phrases).
With respect to claims 8 and 17, the combined teachings of Tolkachev, Mital and Ryger further disclose wherein a step of determining the preset instruction comprises: obtaining all input instructions comprised in a database corresponding to the inquiry component (Tolkachev, [0053], [0061-0062], [0067], [0070], [0089-0090], Fig 4-19; Mital, [0016-0019], [0035-0036], Fig 2-5; Ryger, Col. 4, lines 40-48, Fig 2B- 16: obtaining all input, instructions, relevant information such as and not limited to feedback, state, context semantic information for efficient/effective query/inquiry processing to determine result); and
determining the preset instruction based on all the input instructions, such that the preset instruction does not overlap with all the input instructions (“such that…” as claimed is directed to intended outcome which may not carry patentable weight; Tolkachev, [0053], [0061-0062], [0067], [0070], [0089-0090], Fig 4-19; Mital, [0016-0019], [0035-0036], Fig 2-5; Ryger, Col. 4, lines 40-48, Fig 2B- 16: determine the instructions based on input instructions as configured to process query/inquiry processing for results).
With respect to claims 9 and 18, the combined teachings of Tolkachev, Mital and Ryger further disclose wherein determining the input style of the content information comprises: determining whether a database corresponding to the inquiry component comprises target data matching the content information, in response to determining that the content information comprises a plurality of entries and a preset instruction is input between adjacent entries (Tolkachev, [0053], [0066], Fig 4-9; Mital, [0016-0019], [0035-0036], Fig 2-5; Ryger, Col. 4, lines 40-67, Col. 6, lines 40-67, Col. 9, lines 55-67, Fig 1A-4: determine whether a database relevant target data in response the content information with respect to the entries);
outputting prompt information in response to determining that the database corresponding to the inquiry component comprises the target data, wherein the prompt information is configured to determine whether the current inquiry mode is the single-line input (Tolkachev, [0069-0070], Fig 4-9; Mital, [0016-0019], [0035-0036], Fig 2-5; Ryger, Col. 4, lines 40-67, Col. 6, lines 40-67, Col. 9, lines 55-67, Col. 42, lines 8-11, Fig 1A-4: output prompt information, such as and not limited to promote box/instruction, that determines the search mode for target data); and
determining the input style as the single-line input in response to receiving a confirmation instruction for the prompt information (Tolkachev, [0048-0049], [0059-0064], [0067-0084]: [0069-0070], Fig 4-9; Mital, [0016-0019], [0035-0036], Fig 2-5;Ryger, Col. 4, lines 40-67, Col. 6, lines 40-67, Col. 9, lines 55-67, Col. 42, lines 8-11, Fig 1A-16: determine the input style as well as searching mode in response to the prompt information via user and/pr AI input).
Examiner Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle Owyang whose telephone number is (571)270-1254. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-6pm 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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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.
/MICHELLE N OWYANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168