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 2 February 2026 regarding the claims as amended have been fully considered and found persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Applicant has not filed a terminal disclaimer against parent U.S. Patent 12067057 therefore the obviousness type double patenting rejection of all pending claims is maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12067057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are mere broader versions or obvious variations/combinations of the claims of the U.S. Patent. Claims 1, 8 of the instant application are mere broader versions of claims 1, 11 of the U.S. Patent with a slight difference in wording for example reciting "a search query" instead of "a search request", "an aggregate count of results for a search query" instead of "a plurality of first results with a first tag and a plurality of second results with a second tag". However the meanings in both claims are similar. Note claim 1 of the instant application omits the limitations of receiving a search request, determining at least one selection feature to filter the search request. Claim 1 of the instant application also omits the last limitation of claim 1 of the U.S. Patent. However it is obvious to remove limitations to obtain broader coverage. Claim 1 as amended merely describes the first and second tag. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include such features depending on users/application requirements. Thus claim 1 of the instant application is obvious over claim 1 of the U.S. Patent. Claim 8 of the instant application similarly maps to claim 11 of the U.S. Patent.
Claims 2-7 of the instant application map to claims 2-7 of the U.S. Patent respectively as shown below.
Claims 9-14 of the instant application similarly map to claims 12-17 of the U.S. Patent.
Claims 15-20 of the instant application merely correspond to computer program products for claims 1-7 of the instant application thus are rejected for the same reasons discussed in claims 1-7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Banti et al (US 9367627 B1) teach various embodiments that involve selecting supplemental content to be included in a search results page. A search query is received. A set of search results is generated by executing a search based at least in part on the search query. A subset of supplemental content providers is selected based at least in part on respective relevancies of the supplemental content providers to the search query. A search results page is generated. The search results page is configured to present supplemental content from the subset of supplemental content providers in association with the set of search results.
Srivastava (US 20140218383 A1) teaches a system and method for illustrating enterprise data. An example method includes accessing data from an enterprise application, wherein the data is organized into one or more objects; categorizing the one or more objects based on a grouping criterion, resulting in one or more groups of one or more categorized objects in response thereto; displaying representations of the one or more categorized objects as nodes of a visualization such that each node is positioned in a section of the visualization according to a group associated with the node, resulting in one or more sections of nodes corresponding to the one or more groups; and adjusting a luminance of each node based on a node-appearance criterion. The visualization may be automatically sectioned based on a select combination of user-specified data attributes or criteria, where the selected combination yields a visualization with the most dark nodes in a given section.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN T LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ajay M Bhatia can be reached at 5712723906. 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.
/UYEN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 23 February 2026