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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 29th, 2026. Claims 1 and 9-10 is amended and claims 5 is/are cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 6-14 have been examined in this application.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11-14 is/are drawn to system (i.e., a manufacture), claims 9 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), and claims 10 is/are drawn to computer readable storage media (i.e., a manufacture). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1: A search device, comprising:
one or more processors, wherein at least one of the processors acquires a search string,
the search string being entered by a user into an entry field,
determines whether the acquired search string contains a tag based on tag information from a server,
deletes the tag from the search string,
and sets the tag as a search index, when determining that the search string contains the tag,
generates, based on the set search index and a remaining character string,
search information for searching targeted information, the search information including the set search index and the remaining character string as search parameters distinguishable from each other,
and transmits the search information to the server, the remaining character string being made by deleting the tag from the search string, and
acquires, from the server, a search result based on the generated search information, the search result being one or more pieces of the targeted information that correspond to the remaining character string, among pieces of the targeted information that belong to the search index contained in the search information,
wherein the search information is configured such that the server extracts a group of pieces of the targeted information that belong to the search index included in the search information, and subsequently performs a search using the remaining character string on the extracted group of pieces of the targeted information, without using the deleted tag as a keyword search term, and
wherein when the processor deletes the tag from the search string and sets the tag as the search index, the processor causes the display of information indicating completion of setting of the tag as the search index so as to allow the user to visually recognize the information.
(Examiner notes: The underlined claim terms above are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two)
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the independent claims is/are directed to the abstract idea of receiving a user-entered search string, identifying a predefined tag/category within the search string, separating/removing the tag from the remaining query text, using the tag as a search criterion/index, maintaining the tag/search index and the remaining text as distinguishable search criteria, selecting a group of information associated with the tag/search index, subsequently searching within that selected group using the remaining text without using the removed tag as a keyword search term, obtaining corresponding search results, and displaying information indicating that the tag/search criterion has been set. The amended independent claims expressly require that the search index and remaining character string be distinguishable search parameters and that the server first extract a group belonging to the search index and subsequently search that group using the remaining character string without using the deleted tag as a keyword. This subject matter falls most directly within the judicial exception grouping of mental processes, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The core operations of recognizing a predefined label/category in text, separating that label from remaining text, treating the label and remaining text as different search criteria, selecting information belonging to the identified category, and evaluating or searching the selected information according to the remaining criterion are activities that can be performed conceptually by a human using observation, judgment, predetermined rules, and pen and paper. The additional requirement that the removed tag not also be used as a keyword merely specifies the rule according to which the categorized information is subsequently evaluated. The claims also concern the organization, classification, filtering, and retrieval of information according to predefined labels and criteria. To the extent such activities are characterized as organizing human activity, they concern organizing and managing information through predefined classifications and rules. From applicant’s specification 0024-0041, a person presented with the search request “near a mall, non-smoking” may consult a predefined list of accommodation categories, recognize “non-smoking” as one such category, separate “non-smoking” from “near a mall,” use the “non-smoking” category to identify a group of accommodation facilities classified as non-smoking, and then review that selected group for accommodations satisfying the remaining criterion “near a mall,” without again using “non-smoking” as a keyword. The person may thereafter indicate that the non-smoking category has been applied. Thus, the amended requirement of first selecting a group according to the tag/index and subsequently searching within that group according to the remaining character string does not change the fundamental character of the recited concept; it further defines the rules by which information is categorized and evaluated. Accordingly, the independent claims recite a mental process, namely analyzing a user's search input, identifying a predefined classification, separating the classification from remaining information, separately applying the classification and remaining information as search criteria, selecting information belonging to the classification, and evaluating the selected information according to the remaining criterion. Such acts constitute observation, evaluation, judgment, and rule-based information processing capable of being performed mentally or with pen and paper. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
And the dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 11 further recite particular timing of tag removal, user interaction for setting a tag, displaying visual indications concerning deletion or setting of a tag, performing processing while a user is entering a search string, and displaying and selecting a complemented character string. These limitations merely specify further when the underlying classification operation occurs, what user action causes the operation, or what information concerning the operation is presented to the user. As, such claim 2 specifies performing tag deletion at the timing of a search manipulation; claim 3 specifies performing the operation while the user is entering the search string; claim 4 makes setting of the tag responsive to a user manipulation; claims 6 and 7 display information reflecting completion of deletion or setting of the tag; and claims 8 and 11 employ a displayed complemented character string and user selection thereof as part of the query-processing sequence. These additional limitations do not alter the fundamental nature of the claimed concept, which remains directed to analyzing information, recognizing and applying predefined classifications, separating search criteria, and retrieving or presenting information according to those criteria. Further claim 12, recites receiving and retaining information for subsequent use. Conceptually, a person may receive a list of predefined labels or categories from another source, record or retain that list, and subsequently consult the retained list when determining whether a received search request contains one of those labels. The limitation therefore adds information collection and recordkeeping to the underlying classification process and does not alter the fundamental abstract character of the claim. Accordingly, claim 12 continues to recite the abstract mental process of organizing, classifying, and evaluating information using predefined criteria. Claim 13, recites presenting information, namely an area for receiving a search request together with predefined classifications represented by the acquired tag information. A person may likewise prepare a form containing an area for entering a request and display or list the available classification labels taken from a previously received list. The limitation therefore concerns presentation of information associated with the underlying classification process and does not alter the character of the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 13 continues to recite the same abstract mental process of categorizing and organizing information according to predefined labels. Further, claim 14 requires determining a quantified degree of similarity, comparing the calculated value with a predetermined reference or threshold value, and determining that the textual items are sufficiently similar when the calculated value equals or exceeds the threshold. The calculation of a similarity value and comparison of that value with a predetermined threshold constitute a mathematical calculation and comparison. The resulting determination of whether a character string is sufficiently similar to a predefined tag also constitutes a rule-based evaluation that can be performed mentally (i.e. a person may apply an established scoring rule to two character strings, assign a similarity score, compare the score with an established minimum score, and classify the strings as similar when the score satisfies the minimum.) Accordingly, claim 14 recites both a mathematical concept and the underlying mental process of evaluating and classifying information according to a predetermined rule. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. §101, namely data organization, classification, and information retrieval based on rules applied to user input, rather than to an improvement in computer technology itself. As such, the claims are directed to an abstract idea involving certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, which falls within a judicial exception under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Independent claim(s) 9 and 10 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using a search device, processors, computer, server, etc. (Claims 1, 9, and 10) is/are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of using a search device, processors, computer, server, etc. (Claims 1, 19, and 10, and dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 11-14) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g., acquire, determine, delete, generate, index, etc. steps performed by a search device, processors, computer, etc.). This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional element(s) of steps of acquiring the user-entered search string and acquiring tag information from the server merely constitute insignificant pre-solution activity, because they gather the information used to perform the recited abstract process of analyzing, categorizing, and searching information according to predefined criteria. These limitations merely supply the input data necessary to carry out the judicial exception and do not themselves alter or improve the functioning of the computer, server, or search system. Likewise, the limitation of causing display of information indicating completion of setting of the tag as the search index so as to allow the user to visually recognize the information merely constitutes insignificant post-solution activity, because it communicates the status or result of the preceding abstract classification operation. The display merely reports information resulting from the abstract process and does not impose any technological requirement beyond presenting the result to the user. These data-gathering and information display limitations are incidental to the judicial exception and do not impose a meaningful limit on its practice. Rather, they merely provide information before performance of the abstract process and communicate information after the abstract process has been carried out. Accordingly, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, these additional limitations merely append insignificant pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, receipt, recognition, organization, and transmission of information, and insignificant post-solution activity, such as retrieval and display of search results or processing status, to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). The recited use of a server and display does not change the character of these activities or provide a particular technological implementation that meaningfully limits the judicial exception. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 11-14 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 9, and 10, and dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 11-14 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) of acquiring a search string, deleting a tag from the search string, setting the tag as a search index, generating search information, and acquiring a search result merely describe data gathering, data manipulation, and output of results, which are ancillary to the underlying abstract idea of categorizing and searching information based on predefined rules (Independent Claims 1, 9, and 10), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea), i.e. these steps merely describe collect, process, and display information, which is similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic components performing basic functions such as sending and receiving data, where the specification did not disclose a particular technical means for carrying out those functions); see also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-56, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting, analyzing, and displaying information using conventional computer and network technology, without a particular inventive technical means, did not supply an inventive concept), “Storing and retrieving information in memory”, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (as it is here) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Applicant’s own disclosure at paragraph [0041] acknowledges that “when the user selects one of these candidate words, Step S15 is executed involving determination of whether the input search string contains the character string identical to any of the tags indicated by the tag information 112. Specifically, just after entry of a character string “near a mall, non”, candidate words, such as “non-smoking” and “non-acceptance”, may be displayed, as illustrated in FIG. 10. The selection of a candidate word “non-smoking” may lead to execution of Steps S15 to S18 illustrated in FIG. 4, followed by a jump to the display screen illustrated in FIG. 7. This modification can achieve setting of a tag during entry of a search string, and therefore simplify the user’s manipulation”. The recited additional elements - including a processor, an entry field, tag information from a server, a search index, search information, a search result, and display of information to a user - are recited at a high level of generality and perform their ordinary functions of receiving data, processing data, searching data, and displaying data. The limitations further requiring transmission of search information to the server, with the search index and remaining character string represented as distinguishable search parameters, merely use generic computer and network components to communicate the information used in carrying out the recited categorization and searching process. The requirement that the server extracts a group of targeted information belonging to the search index and subsequently searches that group using the remaining character string, without using the deleted tag as a keyword search term, further defines the information-selection and searching rules themselves and does not recite a particular improved server, database structure, indexing mechanism, or search algorithm. Further, the limitations of determining whether a search string contains a tag, deleting the tag from the search string, setting the tag as a search index, and generating search information based on the tag/search index and remaining character string merely describe generic data analysis and data manipulation. The limitation of displaying information indicating completion of setting or deletion merely presents the result of the information processing to the user. This additional element therefore do not ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 11-14 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
Specifically, performing tag deletion at the time of a search manipulation (Claim 2) or during query entry (Claim 3) reflects a routine timing choice for executing known query-processing steps. Triggering tag deletion and index setting in response to a user manipulation (Claim 4) is a conventional way of allowing user-controlled filtering. Displaying visual indications of tag deletion or index setting (Claims 6 and 7), providing complemented character strings with tag handling upon selection (Claim 8), and deleting the tag at a timing of selection of a complemented character string displayed while the user is entering the search string (Claim 11) merely further specify user interaction, timing, and presentation of information. Claim 12 further recites acquiring tag information from the server and storing that information in storage, which merely adds the generic functions of receiving information over a network and storing/retrieving information in memory. See TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 610, 614; Versata, 793 F.3d at 1334. Claim 13 further recites displaying a search screen containing the entry field and tags indicated by the acquired tag information, which merely presents information to the user without reciting an inventive display mechanism. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354-56. Claim 14 further recites calculating a degree of similarity and comparing the calculated degree with a predetermined reference value; to the extent the calculation and comparison are themselves part of the identified judicial exception, performing them on the generic processor does not provide the required inventive concept. See SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1168-70 (generic computers used to perform mathematical calculations did not supply an inventive concept); see also Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594 (1978) (repetitive calculation of values using conventional computer activity). These limitations do not introduce any new technical functionality or improvement to computer technology, but instead describe control logic, data handling, user interaction, calculation, and display operations recited at a high level of generality and therefore fail to integrate the abstract concept into a practical application and it is recited at a high level of generality and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-14 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status:
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 20210117478 (“Hopkins”) in view U.S. Pat. 20150169582 (“Jain”) in further view of U.S. Pub. 20100281417 (“Yolleck”).
As per claims 1, 9, and 10, Hopkins discloses one or more processors, wherein at least one of the processors (Examiner interprets Hopkins's computing environment as including at least one processing unit and expressly providing that, in a multiprocessor system, multiple processing units execute computer-executable instructions. Thus, Hopkins's computing environment corresponds to the claimed search device having one or more processors) (0152-0153) acquires a search string (Examiner interprets that | Hopkins receives a search query and identifies the user-entered search term/search query as the input to the search process) (“FIG. 1A illustrates a flowchart for generating categorical and criterion-based search results from a search query. At step 110 the search query is received. This step is discussed in greater detail with respect to FIG. 1B …”) (0026-0027, 0043),
the search string being entered by a user into an entry field (Examiner interprets Hopkins's received search query/user-entered search term as corresponding to the claimed search string i.e. Hopkins's “search box or other input location” as corresponding to the claimed entry field and Hopkins explains that the user-entered search term and search query are interchangeable and that the user enters the search term into a search box or other input location) (“FIG. 1B illustrates another flowchart for generating categorical and criterion-based search results from a search query according to an exemplary embodiment. This illustrative search is shown with reference to a product search, but the same method can be used for a service, website links, news, information, images, videos, and/or other type of search as well. At step 101, a search term (used interchangeably with the “user-entered search term” or “search query”) is entered by a user into a search box or other input location. The search term can be of either a very general nature (e.g., “shoes”), a highly-parameterized nature (e.g., “men's black Florsheim loafers, size 10), something in between (e.g., “men's black loafers”), or of any other format”) (0043, 0026-0027),
deletes the tag from the search string (Examiner interprets Hopkins's separation of a query fragment mapped to a filter from the remaining query fragments mapped to one or more core search terms as corresponding to removal of the filter/tag fragment from the remaining textual search string. Hopkins determines filters and core search terms from the query fragments, maps at least one query fragment to a corresponding filter, and maps query fragments remaining after filter mapping to the core search terms. Thus, a query fragment that is successfully mapped and retained as a filter is distinguished from, and does not form part of, the remaining core search term) (“FIG. 1A one or more filters applicable to the search query and one or more core search terms applicable to the search query are determined based at least in part on the determined category and the one or more query fragments. Each filter in the one or more filters corresponds to a query fragment in the one or more query fragments. The step of determining one or more filters applicable to the search query and one or more core search terms applicable to the search query can include (1) identifying a plurality of filters corresponding the determined category based at least in part on one or more filter-extraction rules …”) (0031-0033, 0089-0091),
and sets the tag as a search index (Examiner interprets Hopkins's mapping of a query fragment to a search filter/filter value that determines a target-database filter search range as corresponding, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, to setting the query criterion as the claimed search index. The filter operates as an indexing/search criterion by identifying the subset of targeted information against which the remaining textual search term is subsequently searched) (0031-0036, 0092-0093),
when determining that the search string contains the tag (Examiner interprets Hopkins's comparison of a query fragment with filter attributes and mapping of the query fragment to a corresponding filter when a match is identified as determining that the input query contains the corresponding filter/tag criterion) (0031-0032),
generates, based on the set search index and a remaining character string, search information for searching targeted information (Examiner interprets Hopkins's custom query as the claimed search information and Hopkins's final filter/filter value as the claimed search index and core search term as the claimed remaining character string. Hopkins generates the custom query based on the filters, core search terms, determined category, and attributes of the target database, and further determines a target-database filter and corresponding filter search range for use in generating the query) (“process of mapping any remaining query fragments in the one or more query fragments to the one or more core search terms can include (1) identifying any query fragments in the one or more query fragments that are not mapped to any filters in the plurality of filters, (2) setting the one or more core search terms to the identified query fragments when a quantity of identified query fragments is greater than zero, and (3) setting the one or more core search terms to a null value when a quantity of identified query fragments is zero … FIG. 1A the at least one custom query is executed on the at least one target database to generate a set of search results. The target database can be any type of database, such as a database of items, information, or content. The target database can also be a website which includes a number webpages within the website. Additionally, the target database can be a database of websites, such as the index of a search engine, which stores references to additional websites. Furthermore, at least one target database can include multiple target databases of different types”) (0033-0037, 0083-0084),
the search information including the set search index and the remaining character string as search parameters distinguishable from each other (Examiner interprets Hopkins's separately maintained search filters/filter values and core search terms as distinguishable search parameters. Hopkins expressly identifies the extracted filter/filter values and core search terms as separate inputs used to construct and execute the database search i.e. describes database searches mediated by extracted search filters/filter values while also employing specific/core search terms) (0031-0036, 0083-0084),
and transmits the search information to the server (Examiner interprets Hopkins's generation and use of a custom URL/custom query to interrogate a target website or target database, in combination with Hopkins's disclosed networked-server implementation, as transmitting the claimed search information to the server. Hopkins expressly generates a custom URL using the filter information and interrogates the website with that URL to obtain search results. Hopkins also expressly provides that its computing environment may include networked servers, clustered servers, or cloud-network computing devices) (“at least one target database can include at least one website. In this case, the step of executing the at least one custom query on the at least one target database to generate a set of search results can include, for each website in the at least one website, (1) retrieving a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) corresponding to a search page of the website, (2) generating at least one custom URL corresponding to the website based at least in part on the retrieved URL, the at least one filter defined in the custom query, and the at least one category defined in the custom query, (3) interrogating the website using the at least one custom URL to generate at least one group of search results, and (4) aggregating the at least one group of search results into the set of search results …”) (0038-0039, 0156-0158),
the remaining character string being made by deleting the tag from the search string (Examiner interprets Hopkins's core search term as the residual textual search information remaining after query fragments mapped to retained filters are separated from the query. As discussed above, Hopkins maps filter fragments separately from remaining fragments and expressly illustrates an original query being decomposed into filter values and a residual core search term) (0031-0033, 0089-0091),
and acquires, from the server, a search result based on the generated search information (Examiner interprets that Hopkins executes its custom query against the target database and obtains a set/group of search results. In its server/network implementation, those results are communicated back from the server-side search entity) (0037-0038, 0101, 0156-0158),
the search result being one or more pieces of the targeted information that correspond to the remaining character string, among pieces of the targeted information that belong to the search index contained in the search information (Examiner interprets that Hopkins further teaches restricting the searchable target-database elements according to the final filters and filter values to form a target-database filter search range and excluding elements that fail to satisfy the filter criteria (Hopkins, ¶¶ 0092-0093. Hopkins thereafter narrows the target-database search range according to the final search filters and subsequently executes the search against that narrowed search range using the search-term/core-search-term information, ¶¶ 0099-0101. Thus, Hopkins teaches or suggests first identifying a group of targeted information according to the filter/search index and subsequently searching within that restricted group using the remaining textual search term) (0092-0093, 0097-0101),
wherein the search information is configured such that the server extracts a group of pieces of the targeted information that belong to the search index included in the search information (Examiner interprets that Hopkins expressly forms a target-database filter search range consisting of database elements satisfying the applicable filter/filter-value criteria and excludes elements failing those criteria. Under Hopkins's networked/server implementation, identifying the filtered search range corresponds to identifying or extracting the claimed group according to the search index/filter) (0092-0098, 0158),
and subsequently performs a search using the remaining character string on the extracted group of pieces of the targeted information (Examiner interprets that Hopkins first narrows the target-database search range according to the final search filters and/or category and thereafter expressly states that the search against the resulting target-database search range is “actually executed”, with matching elements within that restricted search range being returned as search results, ¶¶ 0099-0101. Thus, Hopkins teaches the claimed sequence of first restricting/identifying the relevant group based on the filter/index and subsequently conducting the textual search against the restricted group) (“FIG. 8 illustrates an exemplary search of one or more target databases with all of the pre-search preparations having been completed. With these preparations in place, searches against the one or more target databases take place as follows. (1) The user-entered search term (Box 801, which is the same as Box 101 in FIG. 1) is passed through in its previously-defined optimal search-term format(s) (Box 802A, the same as Box 702C in FIG. 7), modified as desired, by the final core search term 802B (the same as Box 702L), to the one or more target databases …”) (0099-0101),
without using the deleted tag as a keyword search term (Examiner interprets that Hopkins separately maps filter fragments and remaining core search-term fragments. Hopkins's example further demonstrates that a filter value is returned to the core search term only when the corresponding filter cannot be used against the target database. Accordingly, when a filter value remains usable and is applied as a filter, that filter value is maintained separately from the core keyword-search term rather than being used as part of that keyword-search term) (0031-0033, 0088-0091),
and wherein when the processor deletes the tag from the search string and sets the tag as the search index (Examiner interprets Hopkins's mapping of a query fragment to a retained filter and mapping of the remaining query fragments to the core search term as corresponding to deleting/separating the claimed tag from the search string and setting the tag as the claimed search index i.e. filter-associated portions of the user-entered query are separated from the remaining core search term and retained as filter criteria used to constrain the database search) (0031-0033, 0081, 0089-0091).
Hopkins specifically doesn’t disclose, determines whether the acquired search string contains a tag based on tag information from a server, the tag information indicating a list of tags, however Jain discloses, determines whether the acquired search string contains a tag based on tag information from a server (Examiner interprets that Jain discloses a named-entity filter configured to identify named entities within a query. Jain explains that terms such as “SQL Server” can be identified and recognized as a single named entity rather than as two unrelated words, and that the named-entity filter modifies the token-order information accordingly) (“Named entity filter 240 is a filter that is configured to identify named-entities in the query. For example if the document states "Install SQL Server on your machine." It becomes helpful to identify and recognize that "SQL Server" is a named entity and not two separate unrelated words. The named entity filter 240 modifies the token order information of the query so that the words "SQL Server" are identified as a single token and not as two separate tokens … named entity filter 240 obtains a list of named entities from a domain expert where the named entities have been mapped to an ontology model to identify other features that are common to the named entities. For example "SQL Server" and "logical processors" may be tagged as "Software Entity" in the ontology model. This list of named entities may also be created automatically or automatically in conjunction with a domain expert … builds a graph as a pre-processing step to enable fast lookups. In this graph, nodes denote words and edges connect words if they occur together in a phrase in the named-entity list”) (0036-0039, 0024-0026, 0072-0075),
the tag information indicating a list of tags (Examiner interprets that Jain's recognized named entities as corresponding to the claimed tags, the named-entity/ontology information as corresponding to the claimed tag information, and Jain's list of named entities as corresponding to the claimed list of tags. Jain additionally teaches a distributed query-processing environment in which query-processing components may reside on different servers or virtual machines and execute respective query-processing functions. Thus, Jain teaches or suggests providing the named-entity recognition functionality and associated information within a distributed/server-based query-processing architecture) (“The named entity filter 240 obtains a list of named entities from a domain expert where the named entities have been mapped to an ontology model to identify other features that are common to the named entities. For example "SQL Server" and "logical processors" may be tagged as "Software Entity" in the ontology model. This list of named entities may also be created automatically or automatically in conjunction with a domain expert”) (0037, 0024-0026).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Hopkins's query-fragment identification and filter-extraction process to employ Jain's named-entity recognition and ontology based named-entity information. Hopkins already parses a user-entered query into fragments and determines which fragments are to be used as filters and which fragments remain as core search terms. Jain teaches a known technique for recognizing meaningful named entities, including multi-word entities, as single semantic units using a stored list of named entities mapped to an ontology, to more reliably identify query fragments representing filterable/tagged concepts, including multi-word concepts, and to avoid treating portions of a single named entity as unrelated query terms.
Hopkins specifically doesn’t disclose, the processor causes the display of information indicating completion of setting of the tag as the search index so as to allow the user to visually recognize the information, however Yolleck discloses, the processor causes the display of information indicating completion of setting of the tag as the search index so as to allow the user to visually recognize the information (Examiner interprets Yolleck's visual indication that a filter “has been applied” as the claimed display of information indicating completion of setting of the tag/search index. Examiner further interprets that Yolleck teaches that FIG. 5 includes a modified filters toolbar having modified images corresponding to filters that have been selected and applied. The modified images indicate filters that have been applied to the search results. Yolleck further teaches that the visual indication may be provided by changing the appearance or color of an image, animating or highlighting the image, or placing an indicator on or near the image i.e. explains that the modified filters toolbar and modified images indicate which filters have been applied and that the resulting displayed information contains only results satisfying those filters; after the filters are applied and filtered results are presented, “the toolbar application modifies the filters toolbar to indicate to the user which filters have been applied.” The user may thereafter remove a filter or apply additional filters. Yolleck also teaches dynamically generated filters based on a list of indicators and search-query terms, including identifying a search-query term as an indicator that one or more filters are available.) (0042-0043, 0050-0054).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the search-filter processing of Hopkins to include Yolleck's visual indication of an applied search filter. Hopkins teaches automatically deriving and applying search filters/search-index criteria from portions of a user-entered search query, to provide Yolleck's visual applied-filter indication in Hopkins's search interface to provide immediate feedback regarding the filter/search criterion being applied, thereby allowing the user to recognize the active search restriction and, as expressly contemplated by Yolleck, subsequently remove or apply additional filters.
As per claims 2, Hopkins discloses, wherein the processor acquires the search string, and deletes the tag from the search string at a timing of a searching manipulation performed by a user (Examiner notes that the underlined limitation is disclosed by another prior art. Examiner interprets Hopkins's separation of query fragments mapped to retained filters from remaining query fragments forming the core search term as corresponding to deletion of the tag from the remaining textual search string i.e. Hopkins receives a user-entered search query/search term entered into a search box or other input location and separates query fragments mapped to retained filters from the remaining query fragments that form the core search term. The example demonstrates that successfully retained filter values do not remain in the core textual search term) (“… FIG. 1A one or more filters applicable to the search query and one or more core search terms applicable to the search query are determined based at least in part on the determined category and the one or more query fragments. Each filter in the one or more filters corresponds to a query fragment in the one or more query fragments. The step of determining one or more filters applicable to the search query and one or more core search terms applicable to the search query …”) (0026-0033, 0043, 0089-0091).
Hopkins specifically doesn’t disclose, at a timing of a searching manipulation performed by a user, however Yolleck discloses, at a timing of a searching manipulation performed by a user (Examiner interprets the user's selection/application of the search filter as a searching manipulation performed by the user i.e. receiving a user's selection of a desired search filter and, responsive to the user's selection, applying the selected filter to the search results. Yolleck teaches that the toolbar application identifies the appropriate modifier for the selected filter, integrates the modifier into the search URL, and causes the browser/search engine to re-execute the search query with the selected filter applied. Examiner interprets the user's selection and application of a search filter as the claimed “searching manipulation performed by a user”) (“user may select a desired filter 410-418 from the filters toolbar 402 by providing an input such as a click from a mouse cursor 420, among other methods. In an embodiment, the user selects multiple filters 410-418 from the filters toolbar 402. The toolbar application identifies the appropriate modifiers from the indicators list for the selected filters and integrates them into the URL for the context-specific search results web page. The browser is directed to the modified URL thereby applying the filter to the context-specific search results and displaying filtered context-specific search results 508 as depicted in FIG. 5 …”) (0041, 0045, 0050-0051).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to configure Hopkins's query-filter processing so that the separation of a recognized filter/tag from the remaining core search term occurs in connection with a user's search-filter manipulation, as taught by Yolleck. Hopkins teaches automatically identifying query portions that are to function as filters and separating those portions from the remaining core search terms, while Yolleck teaches a known user-interface technique in which a user affirmatively selects a search filter and the system applies that filter and re-executes the search, , thereby reducing unintended search restrictions and providing a predictable, user-confirmed search-filter operation.
As per claims 4, Hopkins discloses, wherein when the processor determines that the search string contains the tag, the processor deletes the tag from the search string, and sets the tag as the search index, in response to a manipulation for setting of the tag performed by a user (Examiner notes that the underlined limitation is disclosed by another prior art. Examiner interprets that Hopkins identifies query fragments corresponding to search filters, separates filter-mapped fragments from the remaining core search terms, and applies the resulting filters/filter values to define the target-database filter search range) (0031-0036, 0089-0093).
Hopkins specifically doesn’t disclose, in response to a manipulation for setting of the tag performed by a user, however Yolleck discloses, in response to a manipulation for setting of the tag performed by a user (. Examiner interprets that Yolleck discloses receiving a user's selection of a presented search filter and applying the selected filter in response to that user selection. Yolleck teaches that the user selects a desired filter from the filters toolbar and, upon receiving the selection, the toolbar application determines the appropriate modifier and applies the selected filter to the search operation and dynamically generating filters based on one or more search-query terms and expressly provides that one or more search-query terms may be identified as indicators specifying that corresponding filters are available) (0041, 0054, 0050-0051).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Hopkins so that an automatically recognized query criterion is applied as an active search filter/index in response to a user's affirmative selection of that criterion, as taught by Yolleck. Hopkins teaches identifying portions of a user-entered query that function as filters and using those filters to restrict the target-database search range. Yolleck teaches presenting search-query-related filters to a user and applying a selected filter in response to the user's manipulation, thereby providing user control over the active search parameters and reducing unintended filtering.
As per claims 6, Hopkins discloses, wherein when the processor deletes the tag from the search string, the processor displays information indicating completion of deletion of the tag so as to allow a user to visually recognize the information (Examiner notes that the underlined limitation is disclosed by another prior art. Examiner interprets that Hopkins separates query fragments mapped to retained filters from the remaining fragments that become the core search term. A fragment used as an operative filter is therefore removed/separated from the remaining textual/core search term. Hopkins's example decomposes “men's black Florsheim loafers” into separate filters and the residual core search term “loafers.”) (0031-0033, 0089-0091).
Hopkins specifically doesn’t disclose, the processor displays information indicating completion of deletion of the tag so as to allow a user to visually recognize the information, however Yolleck discloses, the processor displays information indicating completion of deletion of the tag so as to allow a user to visually recognize the information (Examiner interprets, in the combined system of Hopkins and Yolleck, Yolleck's visual indication that the query-derived filter has been successfully applied as indicating completion of the corresponding query-processing operation whereby Hopkins separates the filter/tag fragment from the remaining textual/core search term and uses the separated fragment as an active filter. Thus, the user is provided a visually recognizable indication that processing of the deleted/tagged portion has been completed i.e. Yolleck expressly modifies the toolbar/filter representation to tell the user which filters have been applied, including changing color, highlighting, animation, or placing an indicator on or near the image. Thus, the applied-processing state is visually recognizable to the user) (0042-0043, 0052).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to provide Hopkins’s query-fragment/filter processing that automatically separates a query criterion from the remaining core search term and uses that criterion as a search filter, while Yolleck teaches visually indicating successful application of a search filter to provide immediate feedback that the recognized query criterion had been successfully processed and applied separately from the remaining textual query, thereby improving transparency of the search operation and enabling the user to understand the active search restrictions.
As per claims 7, Hopkins discloses, wherein when the processor deletes the tag from the search string and sets the tag as the search index (Examiner interprets that the query fragment mapped to an operative filter is separated from remaining fragments forming the core search term and separated query criterion becomes a filter/filter value defining the target-database filter search range. Under BRI, the filter functions as the claimed search index because it identifies the subset against which the residual text search operates i.e. Hopkins maps a recognized query fragment to a search filter, separately maps the remaining query fragments to the core search term, and uses the resulting filter/filter value to define a target-database filter search range and target-database filter search range consists only of database elements satisfying the final search-filter criteria) (0031-0036, 0089-0093).
Hopkins specifically doesn’t disclose, he processor displays information indicating completion of setting of the tag as the search index so as to allow a user to visually recognize the information, however Yolleck discloses, the processor displays information indicating completion of setting of the tag as the search index so as to allow a user to visually recognize the information (Examiner interprets Yolleck's visual indication of an applied filter as the claimed display of information indicating completion of setting of the tag as the search index because, in the combined system, Hopkins's query-derived tag/filter serves as the search-index criterion, and Yolleck visually indicates that the corresponding criterion has been successfully set/applied i.e. Yolleck discloses displaying information indicating that a search filter has been successfully selected and applied. Yolleck teaches that modified images correspond to filters that have been “selected and applied,” and that the modified filters toolbar employs those images to indicate filters that have been applied to the search results. Yolleck further teaches that the visual representation may be changed by changing color, animating, highlighting, or placing an indicator on or near the filter image) (0042-0052).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Hopkins's query-derived search-filter/index processing to provide Yolleck's visual indication of an applied filter, thus to employ Yolleck's applied-filter feedback with Hopkins's automatically generated filter to provide the user with immediate confirmation that the recognized query criterion had been successfully set as an active search restriction, thereby improving transparency and allowing the user to recognize and manage the active search parameters.
As per claims 12, Hopkins specifically doesn’t disclose, wherein the processor acquires the tag information from the server, however Jain discloses, wherein the processor acquires the tag information from the server (Examiner interprets that Jain discloses a named-entity filter configured to identify named entities within a query. Jain explains that terms such as “SQL Server” can be identified and recognized as a single named entity rather than as two unrelated words, and that the named-entity filter modifies the token-order information accordingly) (“Named entity filter 240 is a filter that is configured to identify named-entities in the query. For example if the document states "Install SQL Server on your machine." It becomes helpful to identify and recognize that "SQL Server" is a named entity and not two separate unrelated words. The named entity filter 240 modifies the token order information of the query so that the words "SQL Server" are identified as a single token and not as two separate tokens … named entity filter 240 obtains a list of named entities from a domain expert where the named entities have been mapped to an ontology model to identify other features that are common to the named entities. For example "SQL Server" and "logical processors" may be tagged as "Software Entity" in the ontology model. This list of named entities may also be created automatically or automatically in conjunction with a domain expert … builds a graph as a pre-processing step to enable fast lookups. In this graph, nodes denote words and edges connect words if they occur together in a phrase in the named-entity list”) (0036-0039, 0024-0026, 0072-0075).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Hopkins's query-fragment identification and filter-extraction process to employ Jain's named-entity recognition and ontology-based named-entity information. Hopkins already parses a user-entered query into fragments and determines which fragments are to be used as filters and which fragments remain as core search terms. Jain teaches a known technique for recognizing meaningful named entities, including multi-word entities, as single semantic units using a stored list of named entities mapped to an ontology, to more reliably identify query fragments representing filterable/tagged concepts, including multi-word concepts, and to avoid treating portions of a single named entity as unrelated query terms.
Hopkins specifically doesn’t disclose, and stores the acquired tag information into a storage of the search device, however Yolleck discloses, and stores the acquired tag information into a storage of the search device (Examiner interprets maintaining that received list/configuration information for subsequent local processing as storing the received tag/filter information in storage of the search device i.e. Yolleck's local computing device includes memory/storage and uses the network-received list of indicators as locally available configuration information for subsequent matching and filter determination. The list may itself be a configuration file and may be updated over the network) (0019-0021, 0029-0032).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to store the server/network-acquired tag information used by the Hopkins-Jain search system in local storage, as taught by Yolleck. Jain supplies remotely available named-entity/tag information for identifying query terms, while Yolleck teaches receiving corresponding indicator/filter configuration information over a network and maintaining that information at the computing device for repeated recognition and filtering operations, thus to locally store such received information to permit repeated lookup and processing without requiring the same information to be reacquired for every query and to permit the locally executing search application to use and update the current tag/filter configuration information.
As per claims 13, Hopkins specifically doesn’t disclose, wherein the processor displays a search screen that contains the entry field and tags identical to the tags indicated by the tag information acquired from the server, however Yolleck discloses, wherein the processor displays a search screen that contains the entry field and tags identical to the tags indicated by the tag information acquired from the server (Examiner interprets the displayed filter representations determined from the received list as tags identical to the tags indicated by the tag information acquired from the server, because the user-interface elements represent the same filters/tags identified by the received configuration information rather than independently generated unrelated labels i.e. Yolleck's displayed filters as corresponding to the claimed displayed tags and Yolleck further teaches receiving through a network connection a list of indicators and associated filter data; the list includes filters and representative images corresponding to those filters. Upon identifying an indicator, the toolbar application determines the associated filters from the received list and displays those filters to the user on the filters toolbar) (0024-0025, 0031-0033, 0037-0038).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to store the server/network-acquired tag information used by the Hopkins and to display the network-acquired tag/filter information in the same search interface containing the query entry field, as taught by Yolleck, in order to make the available search criteria visible and selectable to the user and thereby permit the user to recognize and control the search restrictions associated with the received tag/filter information.
Claims 3, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over .S. Pub. 20210117478 (“Hopkins”) in view U.S. Pat. 20150169582 (“Jain”) in further view of U.S. Pub. 20100281417 (“Yolleck”) in further view U.S. Pat. 6564213 (“Ortega”).
As per claims 3, Hopkins discloses, wherein the processor deletes the tag from the search string while the user is entering the search string during acquisition of the search string (Examiner notes that the underlined limitation is disclosed by another prior art. Examiner notes that the underlined limitation is disclosed by another prior art. Examiner interprets Hopkins's separation of query fragments mapped to retained filters from remaining query fragments forming the core search term as corresponding to deletion of the tag from the remaining textual search string i.e. Hopkins receives a user-entered search query/search term entered into a search box or other input location and separates query fragments mapped to retained filters from the remaining query fragments that form the core search term. The example demonstrates that successfully retained filter values do not remain in the core textual search term) (0026-0033, 0043, 0089-0091).
Hopkins specifically doesn’t disclose, while the user is entering the search string during acquisition of the search string, however Ortega discloses, while the user is entering the search string during acquisition of the search string (Examiner interprets the Ortega discloses processing a search query contemporaneously with user entry of the query. Ortega further discloses an autocompletion client that monitors user entry of a search query and displays suggested autocompletion terms and phrases as the user enters the search query into a search field and that each time a user enters a character of the search query, the client performs corresponding query-processing operations to identify appropriate suggestions) (“provide an autocompletion tool that suggests completed text strings to the user as the user enters text. For example, Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser automatically suggests completed URLs as the user enters text in the URL field; and the TextPlus.TM. for Palm tool suggests autocompletion words and phases (based on frequency of use) as users enter text within Palm Pilot.TM. applications. These tools generally operate based on text strings that have previously been entered on the particular PC, Palm Pilot, or other computing device. As a result, the tools generally are not helpful when the user enters a new term or phrase” and “FIGS. 2(a) and 2(b) illustrate the general form of a user interface that may be used by the autocompletion client 50 for both PCs and handheld computing devices. In this example, as the user enters a search query into a search field 60 of the Amazon.com web site (by voice, stylus, etc.), the autocompletion client displays suggested autocompletion terms and phrases in a drop-down box 62. As illustrated in FIG. 2(a), terms are displayed in an upper pane of the box and phrases are displayed in a lower pane of the box. In other implementations, the autocompletion client may only suggest one type of string (terms or phrases) without the other. As illustrated in FIG. 2(b), once the user has completed a term, the autocompletion client may only display suggested phrases …”) (Col. 1 Ln. 43 - Col. 2 Ln. 28 and Col. 5 Ln. 23-36, See claims 38, 54, 56).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for acquires a search string, the search string being entered by a user into an entry field, determines whether the acquired search string contains a tag based on tag information from a server, deletes the tag from the search string, and sets the tag as a search index, when determining that the search string contains the tag, generates, based on the set search index and a remaining character string, search information for searching targeted information, the remaining character string being made by deleting the tag from the search string, and acquires a search result based on the generated search information, as taught by Hopkins, while the user is entering the search string during acquisition of the search string, as taught by Ortega for the purpose to apply real-time query-entry processing to filter-extraction technique so that recognizable filter criteria could be identified and processed as the query is being entered, thereby providing earlier recognition of search criteria and reducing the amount of user interaction required before executing the search.
As per claims 8, Hopkins discloses, wherein the processor displays a complemented character string, while the user is entering the search string, the complemented character string serving as a complement for the search string being input by the user, and deletes the tag from the search string at a timing of selection of the complemented character string (Examiner notes that the underlined limitation is disclosed by another prior art. Examiner interprets that Hopkins separates query fragments mapped to retained filters from the remaining query fragments that form the core search term. A filter/tag fragment therefore does not remain in the residual textual/core search term) (0031-0033, 0089-0091).
Hopkins specifically doesn’t disclose, wherein the processor displays a complemented character string, while the user is entering the search string, the complemented character string serving as a complement for the search string being input by the user, however Ortega discloses, wherein the processor displays a complemented character string, while the user is entering the search string, the complemented character string serving as a complement for the search string being input by the user (Examiner interprets Ortega's displayed autocompletion term or phrase as the claimed complemented character string, because it supplements or completes the partially entered search string. Examiner further interprets the user's selection of the displayed autocompletion string as the claimed timing of selection of the complemented character string i.e. Ortega's autocompletion client displays suggested autocompletion terms and phrases in a drop-down box. Examiner interprets the displayed suggested autocomplete term/phrase as the claimed complemented character string. Ortega further expressly teaches suggesting autocompletion strings to users during entry of search queries and displays suggestions as characters are entered) (“provide an autocompletion tool that suggests completed text strings to the user as the user enters text. For example, Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser automatically suggests completed URLs as the user enters text in the URL field; and the TextPlus.TM. for Palm tool suggests autocompletion words and phases (based on frequency of use) as users enter text within Palm Pilot.TM. applications. These tools generally operate based on text strings that have previously been entered on the particular PC, Palm Pilot, or other computing device. As a result, the tools generally are not helpful when the user enters a new term or phrase” and “FIGS. 2(a) and 2(b) illustrate the general form of a user interface that may be used by the autocompletion client 50 for both PCs and handheld computing devices. In this example, as the user enters a search query into a search field 60 of the Amazon.com web site (by voice, stylus, etc.), the autocompletion client displays suggested autocompletion terms and phrases in a drop-down box 62. As illustrated in FIG. 2(a), terms are displayed in an upper pane of the box and phrases are displayed in a lower pane of the box. In other implementations, the autocompletion client may only suggest one type of string (terms or phrases) without the other. As illustrated in FIG. 2(b), once the user has completed a term, the autocompletion client may only display suggested phrases …”) (Col. 1 Ln. 43- Col. 2 Ln. 28 and Col. 5 Ln. 23-36, See claims 38, 54, 56, FIGS. 2(a)-2(b)),
at a timing of selection of the complemented character string (Examiner interprets the user's selection of the displayed autocomplete string as the claimed selection timing i.e. Ortega expressly allows a user to select a displayed autocomplete string by mouse click, stylus tap, or voice command. The selected autocomplete string is then added to the search field and may be submitted as the search query) (cols. 1-2 and 5, FIGS. 2(a)-2(b)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to perform Hopkins's query-fragment/filter processing in response to selection of a displayed autocompletion string, as taught by Ortega to initiate or update Hopkins's query-fragment/filter processing upon such selection because the selection produces an updated or completed query suitable for further parsing and filter extraction, thus to reduce unnecessary processing of incomplete query text and would ensure that filter identification is performed on the user's selected/completed query.
As per claims 11, Hopkins discloses, wherein the processor deletes the tag from the search string at a timing of selection of a complemented character string displayed while the user is entering the search string, the complemented character string serving as a complement for the search string being input by the user (Examiner notes that the underlined limitation is disclosed by another prior art. Examiner interprets that Hopkins provides the underlying removal/separation of the tag/filter fragment from the remaining textual/core search term) (0031-0033, 0089-0091).
Hopkins specifically doesn’t disclose, at a timing of selection of a complemented character string displayed while the user is entering the search string, the complemented character string serving as a complement for the search string being input by the user, however Ortega discloses, at a timing of selection of a complemented character string displayed while the user is entering the search string, the complemented character string serving as a complement for the search string being input by the user (Examiner interprets Ortega's suggested autocompletion term or phrase as the claimed complemented character string because the suggestion supplements or completes the partially entered query. Examiner further interprets the user's selection of the displayed autocomplete string as the claimed timing of selection i.e. Ortega allows selection of a displayed autocomplete string by click, tap, or voice command and adds/submits the selected string to the query field. Examiner interprets that selection event as the claimed timing event; Ortega expressly displays autocomplete suggestions during entry of the search query and the suggested autocomplete term/phrase is generated based on the partial user input and supplements/completes the query being entered) (Col. 1 Ln. 43- Col. 2 Ln. 28 and Col. 5 Ln. 36-54, See claims 38, 54, 56).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to configure Hopkins's filter-extraction/query-processing operation to occur in response to the user's selection of an autocomplete string, as taught by Ortega, thus identifying and separating filterable query fragments from the remaining textual query, while Ortega teaches completing a partially entered search query through user selection of a displayed autocomplete string to trigger or update such processing upon selection.
Claims 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 20210117478 (“Hopkins”) in view U.S. Pat. 20150169582 (“Jain”) in further view of U.S. Pub. 20100281417 (“Yolleck”) in further view U.S. Pat. 6041323 (“Kubota”).
As per claims 14, Hopkins specifically doesn’t disclose, wherein the processor calculates a degree of similarity between the tag and a character string contained in the search string, and determines the character string to be similar to the tag when the calculated degree is equal to or higher than a predetermined reference value, however Kubota discloses, wherein the processor calculates a degree of similarity between the tag and a character string contained in the search string (Examiner interprets Kubota's calculated similarity factor as the claimed degree of similarity. In the combination, Hopkins/Jain provide the tag and the character string/query fragment to be compared, while Kubota supplies the known technique for quantitatively determining the degree to which the two character strings correspond. Kubota's example expressly calculates the similarity factor from matching character-string portions i.e. Kubota teaches calculating a similarity factor between character strings. Kubota provides an equation for calculating the similarity factor based on matching portions of a search character string and expressly calculates an exemplary similarity factor of 0.83) (“simple calculation method of similarity factor, the similarity factor is possible to be calculated from the following equation … the similarity factor of the embodiment is (4.times.1.00+13.times.0.77+1)/18=0.83. Whether or not the delimiter is counted as one character may be changed by design …”) (col. 41, ll. 6-18; FIG. 9, steps 702, 704, 714),
and determines the character string to be similar to the tag when the calculated degree is equal to or higher than a predetermined reference value (Examiner interprets that Kubota expressly defines character strings “similar” to a reference/unique character string as character strings resembling that string with a predetermined similarity factor or higher. Kubota further compares an input similarity factor with the calculated similarity factor in step 716 to determine whether an applicable character string exists. Kubota inputs a similarity factor at step 704, calculates a similarity factor at step 714, and at step 716 compares the input similarity factor with the calculated similarity factor. Kubota teaches that character strings having the input similarity factor or higher are identified/displayed. Examiner interprets the input similarity factor as the claimed predetermined reference value and the calculated similarity factor as the claimed calculated degree.) (“"Character strings similar to the unique character string" means character strings resembling the unique character string with a predetermined similarity factor or higher, including a character string with a similarity factor of 100%, or complete matching …”) (col. 5, ll. 20-31; col. 41, ll. 20-33; FIG. 9, step 716).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Hopkins's comparison of a query fragment with filter/tag attributes to employ Kubota's calculated similarity-factor and threshold-comparison technique. Hopkins teaches identifying whether portions of a user-entered query correspond to available filter/tag criteria, while Kubota teaches determining whether character strings correspond sufficiently by calculating a similarity factor and comparing the calculated factor with a predetermined/input similarity threshold to permit recognition of a tag even when the user-entered character string does not exactly match the stored tag, such as where the character string contains a spelling variation or other textual difference, while controlling the acceptable degree of variation using the predetermined threshold.
Response to Arguments
With regards to § 101 rejections:
The arguments filed on August 11th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-4 and 6-11 under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant states that the claimed ordered combination cannot practically be performed in the human mind because it requires client-server communication, automatic query restructuring, a two-level server-side search, and visual feedback. The Examiner, however, does not characterize the generic processor, server communication, or display operations themselves as mental acts. Rather, the recited abstract concept comprises analyzing a user-entered query, recognizing a predefined tag/category, separating that category from remaining text, using the category as one search criterion, and subsequently evaluating information within that category according to the remaining textual criterion. These information-analysis and classification operations can practically be performed through human observation, judgment, and application of predefined rules. The fact that the claim instructs generic processors and servers to perform or automate those operations does not, by itself, prevent the claim from reciting a mental process. MPEP §2106.04(a) expressly recognizes that a computer-implemented claim may still recite a mental process where the underlying evaluation can practically be performed mentally and the computer is used as a tool. See Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant further states that the claims provide a technological improvement because the search index and remaining character string are maintained as distinguishable parameters and the server first extracts information belonging to the search index and thereafter searches that group using the remaining character string without using the deleted tag as a keyword. The Examiner is not persuaded that these limitations improve the functioning of the computer, server, database, or search engine itself. Rather, they specify what information is treated as a classification criterion, what information remains as a textual criterion, and the order in which those informational criteria are applied. The claims do not recite a new database structure, indexing structure, query-execution mechanism, network protocol, memory organization, or other particular technical means by which the server performs the recited functions. Although, Applicant characterizes the result as improved “search accuracy,” an improvement in the quality or relevance of information obtained by applying improved classification rules is not necessarily an improvement in computer or database functionality. In BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., the Federal Circuit rejected a similar argument that better classification and organization of information, resulting in more useful database search results, constituted an improvement to database functionality. 899 F.3d 1281, 1287–91 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Likewise, Electric Power Group explains that claims defining a desired information-based result through collection, analysis, and presentation of information, without reciting inventive technical means for obtaining that result, do not become eligible merely because the information processing occurs on computer and network technology.
The Examiner has also considered Applicant's reliance on MPEP §2106.05(a) and the current USPTO guidance concerning technological improvements, including Ex parte Desjardins. That guidance requires consideration of the claimed invention as a whole and recognizes that a technological improvement may reside in logical structures or processes rather than physical hardware. It nevertheless requires the specification and claims to reflect an actual improvement to computer functionality or another technology, rather than merely a desired improvement in the informational result produced by applying the judicial exception. Here, unlike Desjardins, where the claimed training technique reduced storage requirements and system complexity while preserving machine-learning performance, the asserted improvement arises from the rule for classifying a search term and applying separate informational criteria to obtain more relevant results. The claim does not recite a corresponding improvement in the underlying operation or efficiency of the computer or server.
Applicant's analogy to Example 37 is likewise not persuasive. Example 37 is expressly fact-specific and concerns a particular modification to the operation of a graphical user interface, namely automatically rearranging GUI icons according to usage. The present claims do not similarly alter the operation of a GUI or other computer mechanism; instead, they prescribe how informational search criteria are identified, separated, and applied. USPTO eligibility examples are illustrative and do not establish eligibility merely because another computer-implemented claim was found eligible.
Finally, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination does not provide an inventive concept. The processor, search device, entry field, server communications, receipt of search results, and display perform their ordinary functions of receiving, processing, transmitting, retrieving, and presenting information. Applicant's statement that the ordered combination of client-server communication, query restructuring, server-side searching, and visual feedback provides significantly more has been considered. Unlike the claims in BASCOM, the present claims do not recite a non-conventional placement or arrangement of otherwise conventional computer components. Rather, the recited processor and server perform their ordinary functions of processing, transmitting, searching, and returning information according to the claimed informational rules. Here, the claimed client-server arrangement merely assigns the query-processing and searching functions to generic computing components without reciting a comparable unconventional technological arrangement. Accordingly, Applicant's arguments do not establish that the claims cease to recite the identified abstract idea, integrate that exception into a practical application, or include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the exception. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is therefore maintained
With regards to § 103 rejections:
Applicant's arguments, see pages 12-14, filed August 11th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C 102/103 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive/moots on new ground of rejection.
Applicant's arguments directed to the previously applied combination of Jain, Dimassimo, and Cannon are moot in view of the presently applied grounds of rejection, which do not rely on Jain for the limitations identified by Applicant as allegedly missing from Jain. In particular, the present rejection does not rely on Jain's named-entity filter or stop-word filter to teach deletion/separation of the tag from the remaining search text, generation of the distinct filter/index and remaining textual search parameters, or the subsequent searching of an indexed group using the remaining text. Those limitations are addressed by the other references as specifically mapped in the rejection.
To the extent Applicant's statement is directed to the presently relied-upon teaching of Jain, it is not persuasive. Jain is relied upon more narrowly for its teaching of “recognizing a named entity in a query using stored/list-based named-entity information associated with an ontology”, corresponding to determining whether the search string contains a tag based on tag information indicating available tags. The rejection does not rely on Jain's stop-word removal to establish the claimed deletion of the identified tag. Thus, Applicant's distinction between Jain's named-entity filter and Jain's stop-word filter does not address the manner in which Jain is presently applied. Moreover, obviousness is based upon the combined teachings of the references, and there is no requirement that Jain individually disclose every feature of the claimed search process. Hopkins teaches separating filter-associated query fragments from the remaining core search terms and using the resulting filter criteria and core search terms in the search process, while Yolleck supplies the visual indication that the selected/applied filter is active. Hopkins expressly maps filter-associated query fragments to filters while unmatched fragments become the core search terms. Yolleck expressly teaches modifying the toolbar after a filter has been applied to indicate to the user which filter is active. Accordingly, Applicant's arguments concerning what Jain, Dimassimo, or Cannon individually fail to disclose do not overcome the presently stated rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US. Pat. 10282474 (“Salaka”).
Salaka discloses, a user may submit a search query to a search engine. The search engine may process the search query and generate a set of results. Each of the items searched by the search engine may have been pre-assigned to a category in a category tree. Previous interactions by other users with the items after similar queries may have been recorded. The search engine may identify categories based on the distribution of the interacted-with results among the categories. The category tree may be analyzed at different levels, based on the entropy observed at each level. A level with low entropy may be chosen, and categories at that level used to constrain the query.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAUTAM UBALE whose telephone number is (571)272-9861. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:00 AM- 6:30 PM PST.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
/GAUTAM UBALE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights