DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication filed on February 04, 2026. Claims 51-70 are currently pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 04, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant in Pages 9-10 of the Remarks argues that Gupta, Bagga, and Cao do not teach or even suggest the features “filtering the plurality of suggestion query templates based on the markings, wherein the filtering comprises removing the marked one or more suggestion query templates that have been previously used by the user", as recited in amended independent claim 51 and similarly recited in amended independent claims 58 and 65.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited prior art alone and/or in combination discloses the argued features.
Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, ranking of a query template based on cohesiveness of entity category prevents query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered a valid query template, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number.
Gupta in [0056] discloses ranking of a query template based on cohesiveness of entity category prevents query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered a valid query template.
Gupta in [0093] and [0095] discloses identifying query template based on the user query from one or more query templates previously determined and stored in the database, query template includes associated ranking, identify template based on similarity between one or more templates and the query entered by a user, query suggestions selected based on one or more rankings associated with the query template.
Therefore, Gupta discloses filtering out a plurality of ranked suggestion query templates that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered as a valid query template, which includes one or more ranked or marked suggestion query templates that have been previously submitted or used by the user.
Examiner points out that the claimed feature “one or more” does not require all query templates that have been previously used by a user to be removed during the filtering process, and Gupta’s teaching of “preventing of query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered as a valid query template” reads on the claimed feature of “filtering the plurality of suggestion query templates based on the markings, wherein the filtering comprises removing the marked one or more suggestion query templates that have been previously used by the user".
Therefore, the cited prior art Gupta discloses the argued feature “filtering the plurality of suggestion query templates based on the markings, wherein the filtering comprises removing the marked one or more suggestion query templates that have been previously used by the user".
Applicant in Pages 11-12 of the Remarks argues that the claims do not recite abstract matter, the claims cannot be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, and independent claims 51, 58, and 65 are directed to patentable subject matter, and the pending dependent claims are similarly directed to patentable subject matter at least by virtue of their respective direct and ultimate dependencies from independent claims.
Applicant in Page 11 of the remarks argues that similar to how the MPEP example of claims directed to adjusting a user interface to update a display by rearranging and showing relevant content based on past user usage “do not recite an abstract idea”, the improvement of a user interface in the pending claim limitations does not recite an abstract idea and is therefore patentable subject matter.
Applicant in Pages 11-12 of the Remarks further argues that similar to the limitations of MPEP examples the currently pending claims limitations cannot be performed in the human mind, even with the assistance of pen and paper, the human mind cannot receive and provide content to a user device, let alone simultaneously provide a content item and a selected suggest query template to such a user device.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner points out that the claimed limitations are not similar to the limitations of the MPEP examples the applicant is drawing a comparison to.
It is important to note that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Independent claim 51 and similarly independent claims 58 and 65 covers several steps, such as the monitoring, marking, filtering, and selecting steps, that recite an abstract idea within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper perform the limitations recited in said steps, which are discussed in detail in the current 101 rejection below.
The remaining steps in the claims that are identified as reciting additional elements, such as the storing, receiving, and providing steps, are only adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and are recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and are not directed to any specific improvement in computer technology.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their base claims, recite an abstract idea, recite steps that are identified as reciting additional elements that are only adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or are recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and are not directed to any specific improvement in computer technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
For the above reasons, Examiner states that rejection of the current Office action is proper.
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 51-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1:
Independent claims 51, 58, and 65 respectively recite a method, a system, and a
non-transitory computer-readable medium, which are directed to a statutory category
such as a process, machine, or an article of manufacture.
At step 2A, prong one:
Independent claim 51 and similarly independent claims 58 and 65 recite the limitations:
“monitoring one or more user inputs provided by a user”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper monitor one or more user inputs provided by a user.
“based on the monitoring, marking one or more suggestion query templates from the plurality of suggestion query templates that match at least one of the one or more user inputs, wherein the marking indicates that the respective one or more suggestion query templates was previously used by the user”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper monitor one or more user inputs provided by a user, and based on the monitoring the person can mentally or using a pen and paper mark one or more suggestion query templates from a plurality of suggestion query templates that match at least one of the one or more user inputs to indicate that the respective one or more suggestion query templates was previously used by the user.
“filtering the plurality of suggestion query templates based on the markings, wherein the filtering comprises removing the marked one or more suggestion query templates that have been previously used by the user”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper filter a plurality of suggestion query templates based on markings to mentally or using a pen and paper remove one or more marked suggestion query templates that have been previously used by a user.
“selecting a suggestion query template from the filtered plurality of suggestion query templates”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper select a suggestion query template from filtered plurality of suggestion query templates.
The limitations, as recited above, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover steps that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, but for recitation of generic computer components.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Independent claim 51 and similarly independent claims 58 and 65 recite the limitations:
“storing, in a database, a plurality of suggestion query templates for querying for a content item”, which is a step of storing data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“receiving, from a user device associated with the user, a query for a content item”, which is a step of receiving data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“simultaneously providing, to the user device, (a) the content item and (b) the selected suggestion query template from the filtered plurality of suggestion query templates”, which is a step of providing or outputting data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements “in a database”, “from a user device associated with the user”, and “to the user device” in the steps in claim 51 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The additional elements “a system comprising: control circuitry configured to:”, “in a database”, “from a user device associated with the user”, and “to the user device”, in the steps in claim 58 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The additional elements “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by control circuitry, cause the control circuitry to:”, “in a database”, “from a user device associated with the user”, and “to the user device” in the steps in claim 65 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
At step 2B:
Independent claims 51, 58, and 65 recite the same additional elements as identified in step 2A prong two above. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 51 and similarly independent claims 58 and 65 recites the limitations:
“storing, in a database, a plurality of suggestion query templates for querying for a content item”, which is a step of storing data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
“receiving, from a user device associated with the user, a query for a content item”, which is a step of receiving data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
“simultaneously providing, to the user device, (a) the content item and (b) the selected suggestion query template from the filtered plurality of suggestion query templates”, which is a step of providing or outputting data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, the additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 52 and similarly dependent claims 59 and 66 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the selected suggestion query template comprises one or more metadata fields that uniquely identify the content item”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 51, 58, and 65, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper select suggestion query template that comprises one or more metadata fields that uniquely identify a content item, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 53 and similarly dependent claims 60 and 67 recites additional limitations, such as:
wherein the selecting the suggestion query template from the filtered plurality of suggestion query templates further comprises:
“identifying one or more suggestion query templates from the filtered plurality of suggestion query templates that each comprise a respective combination of metadata fields that uniquely identify the content item”;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 51, 58, and 65, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper select suggestion query template from a filtered plurality of suggestion query templates by mentally or using a pen and paper identifying one or more suggestion query templates from the filtered plurality of suggestion query templates that each comprise a respective combination of metadata fields that uniquely identify a content item, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“comparing a number of metadata fields of each respective combination corresponding to each of the identified one or more suggestion query templates”;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 51, 58, and 65, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper select suggestion query template from a filtered plurality of suggestion query templates by mentally or using a pen and paper comparing a number of metadata fields of each respective combination corresponding to each of an identified one or more suggestion query templates, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“based on the comparison, determining a suggestion query template of the identified one or more suggestion query templates having a least number of metadata fields that uniquely identify the content item as the selected suggestion query template”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 51, 58, and 65, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper select suggestion query template from a filtered plurality of suggestion query templates by mentally or using a pen and paper comparing a number of metadata fields of each respective combination corresponding to each of an identified one or more suggestion query templates, and based on the comparison mentally or using a pen and paper determine that a suggestion query template of the identified one or more suggestion query templates has a least number of metadata fields that uniquely identify a content item as the selected suggestion query template, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 54 and similarly dependent claims 61 and 68 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein each suggestion query template of the plurality of suggestion query templates comprises one or more metadata fields associated with the content item”, which is a step of storing data.
At step 2A prong two, the step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
At step 2B, the step is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
“wherein marking the one or more suggestion query templates from the plurality of suggestion query templates that match at least one of the one or more user inputs further comprises:
determining that at least one respective metadata field of each of the one or more suggestion query templates from the plurality of suggestion query templates has been used in the one or more user inputs at least a certain number of times”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 51, 58, and 65, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper mark one or more suggestion query templates from a plurality of suggestion query templates that match at least one of a one or more user inputs by mentally or using a pen and paper determining that at least one respective metadata field of each of the one or more suggestion query templates from the plurality of suggestion query templates has been used in the one or more user inputs at least a certain number of times, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 55 and similarly dependent claims 62 and 69 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the marking is a tally of a number of times that each respective one or more suggestion query templates matches the one or more user inputs”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 51, 58, and 65, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper mark a tally of a number of times that each respective one or more suggestion query templates matches one or more user inputs, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 56 and similarly dependent claims 63 and 70 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the filtering the plurality of suggestion query templates is further based on filtering, from the plurality of suggestion query templates, one or more suggestion query templates having a respective tally that is greater than a threshold number over a particular period of time”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claims 51, 58, and 65, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper filter a plurality of suggestion query templates based on filtering, from the plurality of suggestion query templates, one or more suggestion query templates having a respective tally that is greater than a threshold number over a particular period of time, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole,
because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 57 and similarly dependent claim 64 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein each respective suggestion query template of the plurality of suggestion query templates comprises: (a) one or more metadata fields associated with the content item, and (b) a different query format, regardless of order or combination of the respective one or more metadata fields”, which is a step of storing data.
At step 2A prong two, the step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
At step 2B, the step is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, dependent claims 52-57, 59-64, and 66-70 are also directed to abstract idea without significantly more and are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 51, 55, 56, 58, 62, 63, 66, 69, and 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gupta (US Pub 2014/0358940).
With respect to claim 51, Gupta discloses a method comprising:
storing, in a database, a plurality of suggestion query templates for querying for a content item (Gupta in [0042] discloses a query suggestion database includes one or more query suggestions and/or query templates that are utilized to determine query suggestions, query suggestions and/or query suggestion templates in the database are determined and/or ranked; Gupta in [0046] discloses database contains previously submitted search queries and/or references to search results of previously submitted queries, previously submitted query stored in the database);
monitoring one or more user inputs provided by a user (Gupta in [0086] and [0092] discloses identifying a query of a user, query provided to the query suggestion engine by the user via an application executing on a computing device; Gupta in [0093] and [0095] discloses identifying query template based on the user query from one or more query templates previously determined and stored in the database; Gupta in [0038] and [0100] discloses determining user pause between entering query for a predetermined amount of time);
based on the monitoring, marking one or more suggestion query templates from the plurality of suggestion query templates that match at least one of the one or more user inputs, wherein the marking indicates that the respective one or more suggestion query templates was previously used by the user (Gupta in [0048] and [0049] discloses determine a query template based on one or more queries and ranking the determined query template, identifying queries that were previously submitted by one or more users, determine queries as conforming to a query template if they share one or more matching terms, matching terms include exact matching and/or soft matching of the terms, ignoring one or more terms; Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, prevent query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number; Gupta in [0080] discloses rank one or more query suggestions based on ranking of the query suggestion template utilized to formulate the suggestions);
receiving, from a user device associated with the user, a query for a content item (Gupta in [0036] and [041] discloses receiving a query or partial query and executing the query against a content database; Gupta in [0086] and [0092] discloses identifying a query of a user, query provided to the query suggestion engine by the user via an application executing on a computing device; Gupta in [0093] and [0095] discloses identifying query template based on the user query from one or more query templates previously determined and stored in the database, query template includes associated ranking, identify template based on similarity between one or more templates and the query entered by a user, query suggestions selected based on one or more rankings associated with the query template);
filtering the plurality of suggestion query templates based on the markings, wherein the filtering comprises removing the marked one or more suggestion query templates that have been previously used by the user (Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, ranking of a query template based on cohesiveness of entity category prevents query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered a valid query template, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number);
selecting a suggestion query template from the filtered plurality of suggestion query templates (Gupta in [0056] discloses ranking of a query template based on cohesiveness of entity category prevents query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered a valid query template; Gupta in [0093] and [0095] discloses identifying query template based on the user query from one or more query templates previously determined and stored in the database, query template includes associated ranking, identify template based on similarity between one or more templates and the query entered by a user, query suggestions selected based on one or more rankings associated with the query template); and
simultaneously providing, to the user device, (a) the content item and (b) the selected suggestion query template from the filtered plurality of suggestion query templates (Gupta in [0100] and in Figure 5 discloses user submits a query or partial query, providing one or more search results to the user in response to the query inputted and providing one or more query suggestions for the query along with the search results, user can click or select a query suggestion from the query suggestion list and/or continue to edit the query in query input).
With respect to claim 55, Gupta discloses the method of claim 51, wherein the marking is a tally of a number of times that each respective one or more suggestion query templates matches the one or more user inputs (Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, ranking of a query template based on cohesiveness of entity category prevents query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered a valid query template, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number).
With respect to claim 56, Gupta discloses the method of claim 55, wherein the filtering the plurality of suggestion query templates is further based on filtering, from the plurality of suggestion query templates, one or more suggestion query templates having a respective tally that is greater than a threshold number over a particular period of time (Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, ranking of a query template based on cohesiveness of entity category prevents query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered a valid query template, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number; Gupta in [0038] and [0100] discloses determining user pause between entering query for a predetermined amount of time).
With respect to claim 58, Gupta discloses a system (Gupta in [0150] and in Figure 8 discloses a system) comprising:
control circuitry (Gupta in [0150] and in Figure 8 discloses a system including a processor) configured to:
store, in a database, a plurality of suggestion query templates for querying for a content item (Gupta in [0042] discloses a query suggestion database includes one or more query suggestions and/or query templates that are utilized to determine query suggestions, query suggestions and/or query suggestion templates in the database are determined and/or ranked; Gupta in [0046] discloses database contains previously submitted search queries and/or references to search results of previously submitted queries, previously submitted query stored in the database);
monitor one or more user inputs provided by a user (Gupta in [0086] and [0092] discloses identifying a query of a user, query provided to the query suggestion engine by the user via an application executing on a computing device; Gupta in [0093] and [0095] discloses identifying query template based on the user query from one or more query templates previously determined and stored in the database; Gupta in [0038] and [0100] discloses determining user pause between entering query for a predetermined amount of time); and
based on the monitoring, mark one or more suggestion query templates from the plurality of suggestion query templates that match at least one of the one or more user inputs, wherein the marking indicates that the respective one or more suggestion query templates was previously used by the user (Gupta in [0048] and [0049] discloses determine a query template based on one or more queries and ranking the determined query template, identifying queries that were previously submitted by one or more users, determine queries as conforming to a query template if they share one or more matching terms, matching terms include exact matching and/or soft matching of the terms, ignoring one or more terms; Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, prevent query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number; Gupta in [0080] discloses rank one or more query suggestions based on ranking of the query suggestion template utilized to formulate the suggestions);
input/output circuitry (Gupta in [0150] and in Figure 8 discloses a system including a processor and input/output devices) configured to:
receive, from a user device associated with the user, a query for a content item (Gupta in [0036] and [041] discloses receiving a query or partial query and executing the query against a content database; Gupta in [0086] and [0092] discloses identifying a query of a user, query provided to the query suggestion engine by the user via an application executing on a computing device; Gupta in [0093] and [0095] discloses identifying query template based on the user query from one or more query templates previously determined and stored in the database, query template includes associated ranking, identify template based on similarity between one or more templates and the query entered by a user, query suggestions selected based on one or more rankings associated with the query template);
wherein the control circuitry (Gupta in [0150] and in Figure 8 discloses a system including a processor) is further configured to:
filter the plurality of suggestion query templates based on the markings, wherein the filtering comprises removing the marked one or more suggestion query templates that have been previously used by the user (Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, ranking of a query template based on cohesiveness of entity category prevents query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered a valid query template, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number); and
select a suggestion query template from the filtered plurality of suggestion query templates (Gupta in [0056] discloses ranking of a query template based on cohesiveness of entity category prevents query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered a valid query template; Gupta in [0093] and [0095] discloses identifying query template based on the user query from one or more query templates previously determined and stored in the database, query template includes associated ranking, identify template based on similarity between one or more templates and the query entered by a user, query suggestions selected based on one or more rankings associated with the query template); and
wherein the input/output circuitry (Gupta in [0150] and in Figure 8 discloses a system including a processor and input/output devices) is further configured to:
simultaneously provide, to the user device, (a) the content item and (b) the selected suggestion query template from the filtered plurality of suggestion query templates (Gupta in [0100] and in Figure 5 discloses user submits a query or partial query, providing one or more search results to the user in response to the query inputted and providing one or more query suggestions for the query along with the search results, user can click or select a query suggestion from the query suggestion list and/or continue to edit the query in query input).
With respect to claim 62, Gupta discloses the system of claim 58, wherein the marking is a tally of a number of times that each respective one or more suggestion query templates matches the one or more user inputs (Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, ranking of a query template based on cohesiveness of entity category prevents query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered a valid query template, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number).
With respect to claim 63, Gupta discloses the system of claim 62, wherein the filtering the plurality of suggestion query templates is further based on filtering, from the plurality of suggestion query templates, one or more suggestion query templates having a respective tally that is greater than a threshold number over a particular period of time (Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, ranking of a query template based on cohesiveness of entity category prevents query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered a valid query template, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number; Gupta in [0038] and [0100] discloses determining user pause between entering query for a predetermined amount of time).
With respect to claim 65, Gupta discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by control circuitry, cause the control circuitry (Gupta in [0017] and [0150] and in Figure 8 discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor) to:
store, in a database, a plurality of suggestion query templates for querying for a content item (Gupta in [0042] discloses a query suggestion database includes one or more query suggestions and/or query templates that are utilized to determine query suggestions, query suggestions and/or query suggestion templates in the database are determined and/or ranked; Gupta in [0046] discloses database contains previously submitted search queries and/or references to search results of previously submitted queries, previously submitted query stored in the database);
monitor one or more user inputs provided by a user (Gupta in [0086] and [0092] discloses identifying a query of a user, query provided to the query suggestion engine by the user via an application executing on a computing device; Gupta in [0093] and [0095] discloses identifying query template based on the user query from one or more query templates previously determined and stored in the database; Gupta in [0038] and [0100] discloses determining user pause between entering query for a predetermined amount of time);
based on the monitoring, mark one or more suggestion query templates from the plurality of suggestion query templates that match at least one of the one or more user inputs, wherein the marking indicates that the respective one or more suggestion query templates was previously used by the user (Gupta in [0048] and [0049] discloses determine a query template based on one or more queries and ranking the determined query template, identifying queries that were previously submitted by one or more users, determine queries as conforming to a query template if they share one or more matching terms, matching terms include exact matching and/or soft matching of the terms, ignoring one or more terms; Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, prevent query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number; Gupta in [0080] discloses rank one or more query suggestions based on ranking of the query suggestion template utilized to formulate the suggestions);
receive, from a user device associated with the user, a query for a content item (Gupta in [0036] and [041] discloses receiving a query or partial query and executing the query against a content database; Gupta in [0086] and [0092] discloses identifying a query of a user, query provided to the query suggestion engine by the user via an application executing on a computing device; Gupta in [0093] and [0095] discloses identifying query template based on the user query from one or more query templates previously determined and stored in the database, query template includes associated ranking, identify template based on similarity between one or more templates and the query entered by a user, query suggestions selected based on one or more rankings associated with the query template);
filter the plurality of suggestion query templates based on the markings, wherein the filtering comprises removing the marked one or more suggestion query templates that have been previously used by the user (Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, ranking of a query template based on cohesiveness of entity category prevents query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered a valid query template, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number);
select a suggestion query template from the filtered plurality of suggestion query templates (Gupta in [0056] discloses ranking of a query template based on cohesiveness of entity category prevents query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered a valid query template; Gupta in [0093] and [0095] discloses identifying query template based on the user query from one or more query templates previously determined and stored in the database, query template includes associated ranking, identify template based on similarity between one or more templates and the query entered by a user, query suggestions selected based on one or more rankings associated with the query template); and
simultaneously provide, to the user device, (a) the content item and (b) the selected suggestion query template from the filtered plurality of suggestion query templates (Gupta in [0100] and in Figure 5 discloses user submits a query or partial query, providing one or more search results to the user in response to the query inputted and providing one or more query suggestions for the query along with the search results, user can click or select a query suggestion from the query suggestion list and/or continue to edit the query in query input).
With respect to claim 69, Gupta discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 65, wherein the marking is a tally of a number of times that each respective one or more suggestion query templates matches the one or more user inputs (Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, ranking of a query template based on cohesiveness of entity category prevents query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered a valid query template, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number).
With respect to claim 70, Gupta discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 69, wherein the filtering the plurality of suggestion query templates is further based on filtering, from the plurality of suggestion query templates, one or more suggestion query templates having a respective tally that is greater than a threshold number over a particular period of time (Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, ranking of a query template based on cohesiveness of entity category prevents query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered a valid query template, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number; Gupta in [0038] and [0100] discloses determining user pause between entering query for a predetermined amount of time).
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.
Claim(s) 52, 54, 57, 59, 61, 64, 66, and 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US Pub 2014/0358940) in view of Bagga (US Pub 2016/0142783).
With respect to claim 52, Gupta discloses the method of claim 51, wherein the selected suggestion query template comprises one or more…that uniquely identify the content item (Gupta in [0007] - [0009] discloses determining if a query template is valid based on whether a ranking satisfies a threshold, by comparing number of conforming entity category members to a number of entity category members, and by comparing conforming frequency of occurrences to frequency of occurrences of the multiple entities of the entity category; Gupta in [0036], [0044], and [0078] discloses providing user with one or more query suggestions that conform to a template and includes entities that uniquely identify a content, content includes meta information; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose one or more metadata fields, but the Bagga reference discloses the feature, as discussed below).
Gupta discloses template including content information and content item including meta information, however, Gupta does not explicitly disclose:
…one or more metadata fields…;
The Bagga reference discloses one or more metadata fields (Bagga in [0044] discloses media assets determined to be a match with a certain attribute related to a predetermined search query if the media asset includes a tag or metadata identifier for that particular attribute, media asset tags searched to find media assets matching all of the media attributes in the menu category; Bagga in [0049] discloses generating media asset lists for a variety of menu categories corresponding to different combinations of media attributes before recommending such media asset lists for display; Bagga in [0056] and [0058] discloses different menu attribute combinations selected using menu attribute templates, recommendation list for media assets similar to a selected asset from a menu is based on content based attribute tags found in metadata or tags associated with a particular media asset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gupta and Bagga, to have combined Gupta and Bagga. The motivation to combine Gupta and Bagga would be to allow a viewer to easily view content of interest to them by utilizing a personalized content interface tailored to present customized recommendations (Bagga: [0001]).
With respect to claim 54, Gupta discloses the method of claim 51, wherein each suggestion query template of the plurality of suggestion query templates comprises one or more… associated with the content item (Gupta in [0007] - [0009] discloses determining if a query template is valid based on whether a ranking satisfies a threshold, by comparing number of conforming entity category members to a number of entity category members, and by comparing conforming frequency of occurrences to frequency of occurrences of the multiple entities of the entity category; Gupta in [0036], [0044], and [0078] discloses providing user with one or more query suggestions that conform to a template and includes entities that uniquely identify a content, content includes meta information; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose one or more metadata fields); and
wherein marking the one or more suggestion query templates from the plurality of suggestion query templates that match at least one of the one or more user inputs (Gupta in [0048] and [0049] discloses determine a query template based on one or more queries and ranking the determined query template, identifying queries that were previously submitted by one or more users, determine queries as conforming to a query template if they share one or more matching terms, matching terms include exact matching and/or soft matching of the terms, ignoring one or more terms; Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, prevent query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number; Gupta in [0080] discloses rank one or more query suggestions based on ranking of the query suggestion template utilized to formulate the suggestions) further comprises:
determining that at least one respective…of each of the one or more suggestion query templates from the plurality of suggestion query templates has been used in the one or more user inputs at least a certain number of times (Gupta in [0048] and [0049] discloses determine a query template based on one or more queries and ranking the determined query template, identifying queries that were previously submitted by one or more users, determine queries as conforming to a query template if they share one or more matching terms, matching terms include exact matching and/or soft matching of the terms, ignoring one or more terms; Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, prevent query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number; Gupta in [0080] discloses rank one or more query suggestions based on ranking of the query suggestion template utilized to formulate the suggestions; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose metadata field, however, the Bagga reference discloses the features, as discussed below).
Gupta discloses identifying one or more query templates that each comprise a combination of information that uniquely identify a content item, however, Gupta does not explicitly disclose:
…one or more metadata fields…;
The Bagga reference discloses one or more metadata fields (Bagga in [0044] discloses media assets determined to be a match with a certain attribute related to a predetermined search query if the media asset includes a tag or metadata identifier for that particular attribute, media asset tags searched to find media assets matching all of the media attributes in the menu category; Bagga in [0049] discloses generating media asset lists for a variety of menu categories corresponding to different combinations of media attributes before recommending such media asset lists for display; Bagga in [0056] and [0058] discloses different menu attribute combinations selected using menu attribute templates, recommendation list for media assets similar to a selected asset from a menu is based on content based attribute tags found in metadata or tags associated with a particular media asset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gupta and Bagga, to have combined Gupta and Bagga. The motivation to combine Gupta and Bagga would be to allow a viewer to easily view content of interest to them by utilizing a personalized content interface tailored to present customized recommendations (Bagga: [0001]).
With respect to claim 57, Gupta discloses the method of claim 51, wherein each respective suggestion query template of the plurality of suggestion query templates comprises: (a) one or more…associated with the content item, and (b) a different query format, regardless of order or combination of the respective one or more… (Gupta in [0036], [0044], and [0078] discloses providing user with one or more query suggestions that conform to a template and includes entities that uniquely identify a content, content includes meta information; Gupta in [0048] and [0049] discloses determine a query template based on one or more queries and ranking the determined query template, identifying queries that were previously submitted by one or more users, determine queries as conforming to a query template if they share one or more matching terms, matching terms include exact matching and/or soft matching of the terms, ignoring one or more terms; Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, prevent query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number; Gupta in [0080] discloses rank one or more query suggestions based on ranking of the query suggestion template utilized to formulate the suggestions; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose one or more metadata fields, but the Bagga reference discloses the feature, as discussed below).
Gupta discloses identifying one or more query templates that each comprise a combination of information that uniquely identify a content item, however, Gupta does not explicitly disclose:
…one or more metadata fields…;
The Bagga reference discloses one or more metadata fields (Bagga in [0044] discloses media assets determined to be a match with a certain attribute related to a predetermined search query if the media asset includes a tag or metadata identifier for that particular attribute, media asset tags searched to find media assets matching all of the media attributes in the menu category; Bagga in [0049] discloses generating media asset lists for a variety of menu categories corresponding to different combinations of media attributes before recommending such media asset lists for display; Bagga in [0056] and [0058] discloses different menu attribute combinations selected using menu attribute templates, recommendation list for media assets similar to a selected asset from a menu is based on content based attribute tags found in metadata or tags associated with a particular media asset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gupta and Bagga, to have combined Gupta and Bagga. The motivation to combine Gupta and Bagga would be to allow a viewer to easily view content of interest to them by utilizing a personalized content interface tailored to present customized recommendations (Bagga: [0001]).
With respect to claim 59, Gupta discloses the system of claim 58, wherein the selected suggestion query template comprises one or more…that uniquely identify the content item (Gupta in [0007] - [0009] discloses determining if a query template is valid based on whether a ranking satisfies a threshold, by comparing number of conforming entity category members to a number of entity category members, and by comparing conforming frequency of occurrences to frequency of occurrences of the multiple entities of the entity category; Gupta in [0036], [0044], and [0078] discloses providing user with one or more query suggestions that conform to a template and includes entities that uniquely identify a content, content includes meta information; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose one or more metadata fields, but the Bagga reference discloses the feature, as discussed below).
Gupta discloses template including content information and content item including meta information, however, Gupta does not explicitly disclose:
…one or more metadata fields…;
The Bagga reference discloses one or more metadata fields (Bagga in [0044] discloses media assets determined to be a match with a certain attribute related to a predetermined search query if the media asset includes a tag or metadata identifier for that particular attribute, media asset tags searched to find media assets matching all of the media attributes in the menu category; Bagga in [0049] discloses generating media asset lists for a variety of menu categories corresponding to different combinations of media attributes before recommending such media asset lists for display; Bagga in [0056] and [0058] discloses different menu attribute combinations selected using menu attribute templates, recommendation list for media assets similar to a selected asset from a menu is based on content based attribute tags found in metadata or tags associated with a particular media asset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gupta and Bagga, to have combined Gupta and Bagga. The motivation to combine Gupta and Bagga would be to allow a viewer to easily view content of interest to them by utilizing a personalized content interface tailored to present customized recommendations (Bagga: [0001]).
With respect to claim 61, Gupta discloses the system of claim 58, wherein each suggestion query template of the plurality of suggestion query templates comprises one or more…associated with the content item (Gupta in [0007] - [0009] discloses determining if a query template is valid based on whether a ranking satisfies a threshold, by comparing number of conforming entity category members to a number of entity category members, and by comparing conforming frequency of occurrences to frequency of occurrences of the multiple entities of the entity category; Gupta in [0036], [0044], and [0078] discloses providing user with one or more query suggestions that conform to a template and includes entities that uniquely identify a content, content includes meta information; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose one or more metadata fields); and
wherein the control circuitry configured to mark the one or more suggestion query templates from the plurality of suggestion query templates that match at least one of the one or more user inputs (Gupta in [0048] and [0049] discloses determine a query template based on one or more queries and ranking the determined query template, identifying queries that were previously submitted by one or more users, determine queries as conforming to a query template if they share one or more matching terms, matching terms include exact matching and/or soft matching of the terms, ignoring one or more terms; Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, prevent query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number; Gupta in [0080] discloses rank one or more query suggestions based on ranking of the query suggestion template utilized to formulate the suggestions) is further configured to:
determine that at least one respective…of each of the one or more suggestion query templates from the plurality of suggestion query templates has been used in the one or more user inputs at least a certain number of times (Gupta in [0048] and [0049] discloses determine a query template based on one or more queries and ranking the determined query template, identifying queries that were previously submitted by one or more users, determine queries as conforming to a query template if they share one or more matching terms, matching terms include exact matching and/or soft matching of the terms, ignoring one or more terms; Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, prevent query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number; Gupta in [0080] discloses rank one or more query suggestions based on ranking of the query suggestion template utilized to formulate the suggestions; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose metadata field, however, the Bagga reference discloses the features, as discussed below).
Gupta discloses identifying one or more query templates that each comprise a combination of information that uniquely identify a content item, however, Gupta does not explicitly disclose:
…one or more metadata fields…;
The Bagga reference discloses one or more metadata fields (Bagga in [0044] discloses media assets determined to be a match with a certain attribute related to a predetermined search query if the media asset includes a tag or metadata identifier for that particular attribute, media asset tags searched to find media assets matching all of the media attributes in the menu category; Bagga in [0049] discloses generating media asset lists for a variety of menu categories corresponding to different combinations of media attributes before recommending such media asset lists for display; Bagga in [0056] and [0058] discloses different menu attribute combinations selected using menu attribute templates, recommendation list for media assets similar to a selected asset from a menu is based on content based attribute tags found in metadata or tags associated with a particular media asset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gupta and Bagga, to have combined Gupta and Bagga. The motivation to combine Gupta and Bagga would be to allow a viewer to easily view content of interest to them by utilizing a personalized content interface tailored to present customized recommendations (Bagga: [0001]).
With respect to claim 64, Gupta discloses the system of claim 58, wherein each respective suggestion query template of the plurality of suggestion query templates comprises: (a) one or more…associated with the content item, and (b) a different query format, regardless of order or combination of the respective one or more… (Gupta in [0036], [0044], and [0078] discloses providing user with one or more query suggestions that conform to a template and includes entities that uniquely identify a content, content includes meta information; Gupta in [0048] and [0049] discloses determine a query template based on one or more queries and ranking the determined query template, identifying queries that were previously submitted by one or more users, determine queries as conforming to a query template if they share one or more matching terms, matching terms include exact matching and/or soft matching of the terms, ignoring one or more terms; Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, prevent query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number; Gupta in [0080] discloses rank one or more query suggestions based on ranking of the query suggestion template utilized to formulate the suggestions; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose one or more metadata fields, but the Bagga reference discloses the feature, as discussed below).
Gupta discloses identifying one or more query templates that each comprise a combination of information that uniquely identify a content item, however, Gupta does not explicitly disclose:
…one or more metadata fields…;
The Bagga reference discloses one or more metadata fields (Bagga in [0044] discloses media assets determined to be a match with a certain attribute related to a predetermined search query if the media asset includes a tag or metadata identifier for that particular attribute, media asset tags searched to find media assets matching all of the media attributes in the menu category; Bagga in [0049] discloses generating media asset lists for a variety of menu categories corresponding to different combinations of media attributes before recommending such media asset lists for display; Bagga in [0056] and [0058] discloses different menu attribute combinations selected using menu attribute templates, recommendation list for media assets similar to a selected asset from a menu is based on content based attribute tags found in metadata or tags associated with a particular media asset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gupta and Bagga, to have combined Gupta and Bagga. The motivation to combine Gupta and Bagga would be to allow a viewer to easily view content of interest to them by utilizing a personalized content interface tailored to present customized recommendations (Bagga: [0001]).
With respect to claim 66, Gupta discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 65, wherein the selected suggestion query template comprises one or more…that uniquely identify the content item (Gupta in [0007] - [0009] discloses determining if a query template is valid based on whether a ranking satisfies a threshold, by comparing number of conforming entity category members to a number of entity category members, and by comparing conforming frequency of occurrences to frequency of occurrences of the multiple entities of the entity category; Gupta in [0036], [0044], and [0078] discloses providing user with one or more query suggestions that conform to a template and includes entities that uniquely identify a content, content includes meta information; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose one or more metadata fields, but the Bagga reference discloses the feature, as discussed below).
Gupta discloses template including content information and content item including meta information, however, Gupta does not explicitly disclose:
…one or more metadata fields…;
The Bagga reference discloses one or more metadata fields (Bagga in [0044] discloses media assets determined to be a match with a certain attribute related to a predetermined search query if the media asset includes a tag or metadata identifier for that particular attribute, media asset tags searched to find media assets matching all of the media attributes in the menu category; Bagga in [0049] discloses generating media asset lists for a variety of menu categories corresponding to different combinations of media attributes before recommending such media asset lists for display; Bagga in [0056] and [0058] discloses different menu attribute combinations selected using menu attribute templates, recommendation list for media assets similar to a selected asset from a menu is based on content based attribute tags found in metadata or tags associated with a particular media asset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gupta and Bagga, to have combined Gupta and Bagga. The motivation to combine Gupta and Bagga would be to allow a viewer to easily view content of interest to them by utilizing a personalized content interface tailored to present customized recommendations (Bagga: [0001]).
With respect to claim 68, Gupta discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 65, wherein each suggestion query template of the plurality of suggestion query templates comprises one or more…associated with the content item (Gupta in [0007] - [0009] discloses determining if a query template is valid based on whether a ranking satisfies a threshold, by comparing number of conforming entity category members to a number of entity category members, and by comparing conforming frequency of occurrences to frequency of occurrences of the multiple entities of the entity category; Gupta in [0036], [0044], and [0078] discloses providing user with one or more query suggestions that conform to a template and includes entities that uniquely identify a content, content includes meta information; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose one or more metadata fields); and
wherein execution of the instructions causing the control circuitry to mark the one or more suggestion query templates from the plurality of suggestion query templates that match at least one of the one or more user inputs (Gupta in [0048] and [0049] discloses determine a query template based on one or more queries and ranking the determined query template, identifying queries that were previously submitted by one or more users, determine queries as conforming to a query template if they share one or more matching terms, matching terms include exact matching and/or soft matching of the terms, ignoring one or more terms; Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, prevent query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number; Gupta in [0080] discloses rank one or more query suggestions based on ranking of the query suggestion template utilized to formulate the suggestions) further causes the control circuitry to:
determine that at least one respective…of each of the one or more suggestion query templates from the plurality of suggestion query templates has been used in the one or more user inputs at least a certain number of times (Gupta in [0048] and [0049] discloses determine a query template based on one or more queries and ranking the determined query template, identifying queries that were previously submitted by one or more users, determine queries as conforming to a query template if they share one or more matching terms, matching terms include exact matching and/or soft matching of the terms, ignoring one or more terms; Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, prevent query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number; Gupta in [0080] discloses rank one or more query suggestions based on ranking of the query suggestion template utilized to formulate the suggestions; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose metadata field, however, the Bagga reference discloses the features, as discussed below).
Gupta discloses identifying one or more query templates that each comprise a combination of information that uniquely identify a content item, however, Gupta does not explicitly disclose:
…one or more metadata fields…;
The Bagga reference discloses one or more metadata fields (Bagga in [0044] discloses media assets determined to be a match with a certain attribute related to a predetermined search query if the media asset includes a tag or metadata identifier for that particular attribute, media asset tags searched to find media assets matching all of the media attributes in the menu category; Bagga in [0049] discloses generating media asset lists for a variety of menu categories corresponding to different combinations of media attributes before recommending such media asset lists for display; Bagga in [0056] and [0058] discloses different menu attribute combinations selected using menu attribute templates, recommendation list for media assets similar to a selected asset from a menu is based on content based attribute tags found in metadata or tags associated with a particular media asset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gupta and Bagga, to have combined Gupta and Bagga. The motivation to combine Gupta and Bagga would be to allow a viewer to easily view content of interest to them by utilizing a personalized content interface tailored to present customized recommendations (Bagga: [0001]).
Claim(s) 53, 60, and 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US Pub 2014/0358940) in view of Bagga (US Pub 2016/0142783) and in further view of Cao (US Pat 10,445,061).
With respect to claim 53, Gupta discloses the method of claim 51, wherein the selecting the suggestion query template from the filtered plurality of suggestion query templates (Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, ranking of a query template based on cohesiveness of entity category prevents query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered a valid query template, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number) further comprises:
identifying one or more suggestion query templates from the filtered plurality of suggestion query templates that each comprise a respective combination…that uniquely identify the content item (Gupta in [0007] - [0009] discloses determining if a query template is valid based on whether a ranking satisfies a threshold, by comparing number of conforming entity category members to a number of entity category members, and by comparing conforming frequency of occurrences to frequency of occurrences of the multiple entities of the entity category; Gupta in [0036], [0044], and [0078] discloses providing user with one or more query suggestions that conform to a template and includes entities that uniquely identify a content, content includes meta information; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose combination of metadata fields, but the Bagga reference discloses the feature, as discussed below);
comparing a number…of each respective combination corresponding to each of the identified one or more suggestion query templates (Gupta in [0007] - [0009] discloses determining if a query template is valid based on whether a ranking satisfies a threshold, by comparing number of conforming entity category members to a number of entity category members, and by comparing conforming frequency of occurrences to frequency of occurrences of the multiple entities of the entity category; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose a number of metadata fields, but the Bagga reference discloses the feature, as discussed below); and
based on the comparison, determining a suggested query template of the identified one or more suggestion query templates….that uniquely identify the content item (Gupta in [0007] - [0009] discloses determining if a query template is valid based on whether a ranking satisfies a threshold, by comparing number of conforming entity category members to a number of entity category members, and by comparing conforming frequency of occurrences to frequency of occurrences of the multiple entities of the entity category; Gupta in [0036], [0044], and [0078] discloses providing user with one or more query suggestions that conform to a template and includes entities that uniquely identify a content, content includes meta information; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose a combination of metadata fields and has the least number of fields that uniquely identify, but the Bagga and Cao references disclose the features, as discussed below).
Gupta discloses identifying one or more query templates that each comprise a combination of information that uniquely identify a content item, however, Gupta does not explicitly disclose:
…number of metadata fields…;
The Bagga reference discloses a number of metadata fields (Bagga in [0044] discloses media assets determined to be a match with a certain attribute related to a predetermined search query if the media asset includes a tag or metadata identifier for that particular attribute, media asset tags searched to find media assets matching all of the media attributes in the menu category; Bagga in [0049] discloses generating media asset lists for a variety of menu categories corresponding to different combinations of media attributes before recommending such media asset lists for display; Bagga in [0056] and [0058] discloses different menu attribute combinations selected using menu attribute templates, recommendation list for media assets similar to a selected asset from a menu is based on content based attribute tags found in metadata or tags associated with a particular media asset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gupta and Bagga, to have combined Gupta and Bagga. The motivation to combine Gupta and Bagga would be to allow a viewer to easily view content of interest to them by utilizing a personalized content interface tailored to present customized recommendations (Bagga: [0001]).
Gupta discloses identifying one or more query templates that each comprise a combination of information that uniquely identify a content item, and templates including a combination of terms that provides exact matching, and Bagga discloses selecting a combination of metadata fields of a plurality of combinations such that the selected combination of metadata fields comprises a number of metadata fields that identify a media asset, however, Gupta and Bagga does not explicitly disclose:
…having a least number of…fields that uniquely identify…;
The Cao reference discloses having a least number of fields that uniquely identify (Cao in Column 6, lines 8-22 discloses fields are selected for use in assembling exact queries, which are queries that are expected or likely to return only a single match or a low number of matches, which is selecting combination of fields comprising the least number of fields that uniquely identifies; Cao in Column 4 lines 48-64 discloses other queries not using multiple fields to return only single results will be fuzzy or non-exact, which means it will not uniquely identify, executing queries based on some or all permutations of available field values to find exact queries, where the permutations include trying a single field, trying addition of one more field to the single field, trying addition of one more field to a two field combination, and so forth until an exact query is met, which is selecting a first field and if the first field does not uniquely identify incrementing the number of fields by one until the number of fields uniquely identifies).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gupta, Bagga, and Cao, to have combined Gupta, Bagga, and Cao. The motivation to combine Gupta, Bagga, and Cao would be to return a single match or a low number of matches for a query by assembling exact queries (Cao: Column 6, lines 8-22).
With respect to claim 60, Gupta discloses the system of claim 58, wherein the control circuitry configured to select the suggestion query template from the filtered plurality of suggestion query templates (Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, ranking of a query template based on cohesiveness of entity category prevents query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered a valid query template, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number) is further configured to:
identify one or more suggestion query templates from the filtered plurality of suggestion query templates that each comprise a respective combination…that uniquely identify the content item (Gupta in [0007] - [0009] discloses determining if a query template is valid based on whether a ranking satisfies a threshold, by comparing number of conforming entity category members to a number of entity category members, and by comparing conforming frequency of occurrences to frequency of occurrences of the multiple entities of the entity category; Gupta in [0036], [0044], and [0078] discloses providing user with one or more query suggestions that conform to a template and includes entities that uniquely identify a content, content includes meta information; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose combination of metadata fields, but the Bagga reference discloses the feature, as discussed below);
compare a number…of each respective combination corresponding to each of the identified one or more suggestion query templates (Gupta in [0007] - [0009] discloses determining if a query template is valid based on whether a ranking satisfies a threshold, by comparing number of conforming entity category members to a number of entity category members, and by comparing conforming frequency of occurrences to frequency of occurrences of the multiple entities of the entity category; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose a number of metadata fields, but the Bagga reference discloses the feature, as discussed below); and
based on the comparison, determine a suggested query template of the identified one or more suggestion query templates….that uniquely identify the content item (Gupta in [0007] - [0009] discloses determining if a query template is valid based on whether a ranking satisfies a threshold, by comparing number of conforming entity category members to a number of entity category members, and by comparing conforming frequency of occurrences to frequency of occurrences of the multiple entities of the entity category; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose a combination of metadata fields and has the least number of fields that uniquely identify, but the Bagga and Cao references disclose the features, as discussed below).
Gupta discloses identifying one or more query templates that each comprise a combination of information that uniquely identify a content item, however, Gupta does not explicitly disclose:
…a number of metadata fields…;
The Bagga reference discloses a number of metadata fields (Bagga in [0044] discloses media assets determined to be a match with a certain attribute related to a predetermined search query if the media asset includes a tag or metadata identifier for that particular attribute, media asset tags searched to find media assets matching all of the media attributes in the menu category; Bagga in [0049] discloses generating media asset lists for a variety of menu categories corresponding to different combinations of media attributes before recommending such media asset lists for display; Bagga in [0056] and [0058] discloses different menu attribute combinations selected using menu attribute templates, recommendation list for media assets similar to a selected asset from a menu is based on content based attribute tags found in metadata or tags associated with a particular media asset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gupta and Bagga, to have combined Gupta and Bagga. The motivation to combine Gupta and Bagga would be to allow a viewer to easily view content of interest to them by utilizing a personalized content interface tailored to present customized recommendations (Bagga: [0001]).
Gupta discloses identifying one or more query templates that each comprise a combination of information that uniquely identify a content item, and templates including a combination of terms that provides exact matching, and Bagga discloses selecting a combination of metadata fields of a plurality of combinations such that the selected combination of metadata fields comprises a number of metadata fields that identify a media asset, however, Gupta and Bagga does not explicitly disclose:
…having a least number of…fields that uniquely identify…;
The Cao reference discloses having a least number of fields that uniquely identify (Cao in Column 6, lines 8-22 discloses fields are selected for use in assembling exact queries, which are queries that are expected or likely to return only a single match or a low number of matches, which is selecting combination of fields comprising the least number of fields that uniquely identifies; Cao in Column 4 lines 48-64 discloses other queries not using multiple fields to return only single results will be fuzzy or non-exact, which means it will not uniquely identify, executing queries based on some or all permutations of available field values to find exact queries, where the permutations include trying a single field, trying addition of one more field to the single field, trying addition of one more field to a two field combination, and so forth until an exact query is met, which is selecting a first field and if the first field does not uniquely identify incrementing the number of fields by one until the number of fields uniquely identifies).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gupta, Bagga, and Cao, to have combined Gupta, Bagga, and Cao. The motivation to combine Gupta, Bagga, and Cao would be to return a single match or a low number of matches for a query by assembling exact queries (Cao: Column 6, lines 8-22).
With respect to claim 67, Gupta discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 65, wherein execution of the instructions causing the control circuitry to select the suggestion query template from the filtered plurality of suggestion query templates (Gupta in [0056] and [0057] discloses ranking of query templates based on cohesiveness of entity category, ranking of a query template based on cohesiveness of entity category prevents query templates that include an entity category that fails to satisfy a threshold level of cohesiveness from being considered a valid query template, ranking based on number of previously submitted queries that conform to the query template, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of one or more of the queries, weighting based on a count number) further causes the control circuitry to:
identify one or more suggestion query templates from the filtered plurality of suggestion query templates that each comprise a respective combination…that uniquely identify the content item (Gupta in [0007] - [0009] discloses determining if a query template is valid based on whether a ranking satisfies a threshold, by comparing number of conforming entity category members to a number of entity category members, and by comparing conforming frequency of occurrences to frequency of occurrences of the multiple entities of the entity category; Gupta in [0036], [0044], and [0078] discloses providing user with one or more query suggestions that conform to a template and includes entities that uniquely identify a content, content includes meta information; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose combination of metadata fields, but the Bagga reference discloses the feature, as discussed below);
compare a number…of each respective combination corresponding to each of the identified one or more suggestion query templates (Gupta in [0007] - [0009] discloses determining if a query template is valid based on whether a ranking satisfies a threshold, by comparing number of conforming entity category members to a number of entity category members, and by comparing conforming frequency of occurrences to frequency of occurrences of the multiple entities of the entity category; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose a number of metadata fields, but the Bagga reference discloses the feature, as discussed below); and
based on the comparison, determine a suggested query template of the identified one or more suggestion query templates….that uniquely identify the content item (Gupta in [0007] - [0009] discloses determining if a query template is valid based on whether a ranking satisfies a threshold, by comparing number of conforming entity category members to a number of entity category members, and by comparing conforming frequency of occurrences to frequency of occurrences of the multiple entities of the entity category; here Gupta does not explicitly disclose a combination of metadata fields and has the least number of fields that uniquely identify, but the Bagga and Cao references disclose the features, as discussed below).
Gupta discloses identifying one or more query templates that each comprise a combination of information that uniquely identify a content item, however, Gupta does not explicitly disclose:
…a number of metadata fields…;
The Bagga reference discloses a number of metadata fields (Bagga in [0044] discloses media assets determined to be a match with a certain attribute related to a predetermined search query if the media asset includes a tag or metadata identifier for that particular attribute, media asset tags searched to find media assets matching all of the media attributes in the menu category; Bagga in [0049] discloses generating media asset lists for a variety of menu categories corresponding to different combinations of media attributes before recommending such media asset lists for display; Bagga in [0056] and [0058] discloses different menu attribute combinations selected using menu attribute templates, recommendation list for media assets similar to a selected asset from a menu is based on content based attribute tags found in metadata or tags associated with a particular media asset).
Therefore, it would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gupta and Bagga, to have combined Gupta and Bagga. The motivation to combine Gupta and Bagga would be to allow a viewer to easily view content of interest to them by utilizing a personalized content interface tailored to present customized recommendations (Bagga: [0001]).
Gupta discloses identifying one or more query templates that each comprise a combination of information that uniquely identify a content item, and templates including a combination of terms that provides exact matching, and Bagga discloses selecting a combination of metadata fields of a plurality of combinations such that the selected combination of metadata fields comprises a number of metadata fields that identify a media asset, however, Gupta and Bagga does not explicitly disclose:
…having a least number of…fields that uniquely identify…;
The Cao reference discloses having a least number of fields that uniquely identify (Cao in Column 6, lines 8-22 discloses fields are selected for use in assembling exact queries, which are queries that are expected or likely to return only a single match or a low number of matches, which is selecting combination of fields comprising the least number of fields that uniquely identifies; Cao in Column 4 lines 48-64 discloses other queries not using multiple fields to return only single results will be fuzzy or non-exact, which means it will not uniquely identify, executing queries based on some or all permutations of available field values to find exact queries, where the permutations include trying a single field, trying addition of one more field to the single field, trying addition of one more field to a two field combination, and so forth until an exact query is met, which is selecting a first field and if the first field does not uniquely identify incrementing the number of fields by one until the number of fields uniquely identifies).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gupta, Bagga, and Cao, to have combined Gupta, Bagga, and Cao. The motivation to combine Gupta, Bagga, and Cao would be to return a single match or a low number of matches for a query by assembling exact queries (Cao: Column 6, lines 8-22).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REZWANUL MAHMOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-5625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
/R.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights