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 .
Detailed Action
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/3/26 has been entered.
In amendments dated 6/3/26, Applicant amended claims 1, 10, and 19, canceled claims 2, 11, and 20, and added no new claims. Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 are presented for examination.
Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected because of the following informality: the third limitation recites “the representative token being a token designated in the group of tokens that appears most frequently in a group of resources” but there is no recited group of tokens that appears in a group of resources prior to this so it lacks antecedent basis.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 1 and 10 each recites generating, by the one or more computers, a stemmed form of a first token in the search query using one or more stemming rules; obtaining a representative token for the first token, wherein the representative token is a search token variant of the stemmed form of the first token in the search query, the representative token having been pre-selected for a group of tokens that each has a corresponding stemmed form that matches the stemmed form of the first token, and the representative token being a token designated in the group of tokens that appears most frequently in a group of resources; augmenting, by the one or more computers, the search query with the representative token to obtain an augmented query; assigning a weight to each token in the augmented search query, including assigning different weights to the first token and the representative token for the first token; identify, by the one or more computers, resources relevant to the augmented query using a search engine index of content of multiple resources; and based on the weights assigned to the tokens in the augmented search query, ranking resources matching the first token in the search query differently than resources matching the representative token for the first token and not the first token in the search query. Generating a stemmed form of a token, obtaining a token, augmenting a query, assigning a weight to a token, identifying resources relevant to the augmented query, and ranking resources are each recited broadly and are mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Each claim recites additional elements of receiving, by the one or more computers, a search query provided by a user device over a communication network, the search query comprising one or more tokens, which is an input step and insignificant extra-solution activity; and providing, by the one or more computers and to the user device over the communication network, one or more search results indicating one or more of the multiple resources identified as relevant to the augmented search query, which is an output step and also insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 1 recites one or more computers and one or more computer-readable media and claim 19 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, which are generic computers or generic components of a computer system. Examiner notes specification paragraph 0003 states that “it can be difficult to add all relevant synonyms to a received search query,” and paragraph 0005 states “to reduce the amount of query expansion that needs to be done when a search query is received from a user, a search system augments its search index with synonyms for words found in resources. Specifically, the search system adds stem-based variants of words in a resource to a search engine index. The searc system then augments received queries with information needed to match the augmented index.” The claims do not recite the steps taken in augmenting a search index and searching such an index as described above (“to reduce the amount of query expansion that needs to be done when a search query is received from a user”) in addressing the difficulty in paragraph 0003, plus the claims still lack inventive details regarding, for example, how representative tokens are obtained, how a query is augmented with a representative token, how weights are assigned to each token in the query, or how matching resources are ranked. Thus the claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, receiving a search query and providing search results are recited broadly and amount to sending and receiving data across a network per specification paragraphs 0024-0025 and 0028 and figure 2, which are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The one or more computers, one or more computer-readable media and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, are still generic computers or generic components of a computer system. Each of the recited actions are conventional actions for a computer and lack any improvement to a technology that addresses the drawback recited in the specification as described above. Thus the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claims 3 and 12 each recites wherein resources matching the first token in the search query are ranked higher than resources matching the representative token for the first token and not the first token in the search query, and ranking resources is evaluating them and a mental process. Claims 4 and 13 each recites wherein an amount of difference between the weights assigned to the first token and the representative token for the first token is derived from one or more factors of the first query, and deriving a difference between weights is an evaluation and a mental process. Claims 5 and 14 each recites wherein one or more of the factors includes a length of the first query, and determining the length of a query is evaluating and a mental process. Claims 6 and 15 each recites associating the token and the representative token with each other in the search engine index, and associating a token and another token is an evaluation and a mental process.
Claims 7 and 16 each recites determining a language of the search query, wherein the one or more stemming rules are specific to the language, and determining a language of a query is evaluating and a mental process. Claims 8 and 17 each recites determining that the representative token for the first token is different from the first token, and determining a token is different from another token is evaluating and a mental process; and augmenting the search query to include both (i) the representative token for the first token and (ii) the representative token for the first token with a prefix identifying the representative token for the first token as a search token variant, and augmenting a query is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 9 and 18 each recites determining that the representative token for the first token is the same as the first token, and determining a token is the same as another token is evaluating and a mental process; and augmenting the search query to include the representative token for the first token with a prefix identifying the representative token for the first token as a search token variant, and augmenting a query is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20030171914) in view of Chen et al (US 20100169361), hereafter Chen, and further in view of Baker et al (US 8,661,062), hereafter Baker.
With respect to claims 1, 10, and 19, Jung teaches:
receive, by the one or more computers, a search query provided by a user device over a communication network, the search query comprising one or more tokens (paragraph 0084 figure 3 step 301 receive a query with one or more words from a user);
generate, by the one or more computers, a stemmed form of a first token in the search query using one or more stemming rules (paragraph 0084 figure 3 step 303 stemmed word from the query);
obtain, by the one or more computers, a representative token for the first token, wherein the representative token is a search token variant of the stemmed form of the first token in the search query (paragraph 0084 step 303 determining a stem word or a derivative having the core meaning of a query word);
augment, by the one or more computers, the search query with the representative token to obtain an augmented query (paragraph 0084 figure 3 step 304 expand the lemma in the query with the stemmed word);
assign a weight to each token in the augmented search query, including assigning different weights to the first token and the representative token for the first token (paragraph 0087 assign different weights on keywords and different weights on stemmed words after the expansion);
identify, by the one or more computers, resources relevant to the augmented query using a search engine index of content of multiple resources (paragraph 0087 identify results of the expanded query);
based on the weights assigned to the tokens in the augmented search query, rank resources matching the first token in the search query differently than resources matching the representative token for the first token and not the first token in the search query (paragraph 0087 figure 3 step 306 results ranked per the weights); and
provide, by the one or more computers and to the user device over the communication network, one or more search results indicating one or more of the multiple resources identified as relevant to the augmented search query (paragraph 0087 figure 3 step 306 results outputted).
Jung does not explicitly teach obtain, by the one or more computers, a representative token for the first token, wherein the representative token is a search token variant of the stemmed form of the first token in the search query, the representative token having been pre-selected for a group of tokens that each has a corresponding stemmed form that matches the stemmed form of the first token, and the representative token being a token designated in the group of tokens that appears most frequently in a group of resources. Chen teaches the italicized portion of this limitation in selecting a representative token from a group of such tokens for a search query, for example a token group of (10lb: 10 lb, 10lbs, 10 lbs) (paragraph 0079). It would have been obvious to have combined the use of a token group as in Chen with the techniques for augmenting queries in Jung to enable faster lookup of said tokens for a representative token.
The combination of Jung and Chen does not teach obtain, by the one or more computers, a representative token for the first token, wherein the representative token is a search token variant of the stemmed form of the first token in the search query, the representative token having been pre-selected for a group of tokens that each has a corresponding stemmed form that matches the stemmed form of the first token, and the representative token being a token designated in the group of tokens that appears most frequently in a group of resources.
Baker teaches the italicized portion of this limitation with representative tokens in query pairs determined by looking at the frequency of terms in results (resources) (column 5 lines 14-21). It would have been obvious to have combined the function of determining representative tokens using frequency in a group of resources in Baker with the techniques for augmenting queries in Jung and the use of a token group as in Chen to ensure the most popular or closest terms from search results are used.
With respect to claim 1, Jung teaches one or more computers (paragraph 0037 figure 2, information retrieval system with a processor) and one or more computer-readable media (paragraph 0095).
With respect to claim 19, Jung teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (paragraph 0095).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, Chen, and Baker in view of Fliedner et al (US 8,793,120), hereafter Fliedner.
With respect to claims 7 and 16, all the limitations in claims 1 and 10 are addressed by the combination of Jung, Chen, and Baker above. The combination of Jung, Chen, and Baker does not teach wherein the instructions further comprise instructions to determine a language of the search query, wherein the one or more stemming rules are specific to the language. Fliedner teaches this in applying rulesets for a specific language to a search index and associating a stem for a word with the word in a database index based on a rule (column 3 lines 5-14). It would have been obvious to have combined the functionality for determining a query language in Fliedner with the stem word and searching techniques in the combination of Jung, Chen, and Baker to allow for queries in other languages, making the combination more user-friendly.
Relevant Prior Art
During his search for prior art, Examiner found the following reference to be relevant to Applicant's claimed invention. Said reference is listed on the Notice of References form included in this office action:
Robinson et al (US 20070179940) teaches searching for documents by providing a data excerpt and parameters indicating search term inclusion and proximity between terms in a result document, teaches tokens and stemming in search terms and use of synonyms for the stems, does no teach selecting tokens per frequency of the tokens in search results, assigning different weights to terms and representative terms (synonyms), and ranking search results based on said weights (paragraphs 0007, 0040 figure 6).
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding rejections of claims 1, 10, and 19 under 34 U.S.C. 102 by Jung in view of Chen and rejections of claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Jung and Chen in view of Fliedner, Applicant’s amendments overcome Jung’s and Chen’s teachings and these rejections are withdrawn. Examiner conducted another search of the prior art and found Baker which he believes teaches the amended feature in claims 1, 10, and 19 as shown in the new rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 above. Regarding rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. On pages 8-9 of his Remarks Applicant excerpts from specification paragraph 0003 describing the problem in the art of the difficulty of adding all relevant synonyms to a search query and then excerpts from paragraph 0005 describing how “a search system augments its search index with synonyms for words found in resources” and “the search system adds stem based variants of words in a resource to a search engine index” and “augments received queries with information needed to match the augmented index.” Applicant recites the amended limitation “obtain, by the one or more computers, a representative token for the first token, wherein the representative token is a search token variant of the stemmed form of the first token in the search query, the representative token having been pre-selected for a group of tokens that each has a corresponding stemmed form that matches the stemmed form of the first token, and the representative token being a token designated in the group of tokens that appears most frequently in a group of resources” and “augment, by the one or more computers, the search query with the representative token to obtain an augmented query” from claim 1 and asserts the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Examiner disagrees and notes the claim still recites broadly recites steps of obtaining a representative token, augmenting a search query, identifying resources relevant to the augmented query, ranking resources matching the first token and the representative token, and ranking resources differently that match the first token than resources that match the representative token. Said steps do not recite details that might show how the invention achieves the improvements excerpted in paragraph 0005, for example augmenting a search index, adding stem based variants to a search engine index, and augment received queries to match the augmented index. Thus the recited steps, while they each use a computer as a tool to execute, are only generally linked to that computer environment and do not recite a practical application per MPEP 2106.04(d).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 9/4/26
Prosecution Insights