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
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more. The claims as whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Independent claims 1, 11 and 20 recite identifying a search intent of a user based on the search request;
determining, based on the search intent, a first weight and a second weight of a first index and a second index respectively, of a plurality of indexes of a database of the e-book reader;
determining, by using the first index and the second index respectively, a first sequence of search results and a second sequence of search results that match the search request; and
providing at least a portion of search results in the first sequence of search results and the second sequence of search results based on the first weight and the second weight.
The limitations of identifying, determining and providing as drafted cover a mental process when a human receives a sentence written in English to search a book, and based on the intent, looks up index of two books in his notebook to match the intent, and provides the user the matched results from the best book on a piece of paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular claim 20 recites additional element of processor, which is a form of generic computer equipment. In the as-filed Specifications ¶0085] recite As shown in FIG. 10, the electronic device 1000 is in the form of a general-purpose computing device. Components of the electronic device 1000 may include, but are not limited to, one or more processors or processing units 1010, a memory 1020, a storage device 1030, one or more communication units 1040, one or more input devices 1050, and one or more output devices 1060. The processing unit 1010 may be a physical or virtual processor and may execute various processes according to programs stored in the memory 1020. In a multi-processor system, a plurality of processing units execute computer-executable instructions in parallel to improve the parallel processing capability of the electronic device 1000. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer is noted as a general computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 12 recite wherein identifying the search intent of the user based on the search request comprises: determining, based on the search request and by using an intent identification model, at least one data item that the user expects to search for. This amounts to the human determining a word to search in the his notebook index . model is mapped to generic computer hardware because of a lack of specificity. No additional limitations are present.
Claims 3 and 13 recite a character in an e-book, a main character in the e-book, a time in the e-book, a place in the e-book, an event in the e-book, a title in the e-book, a plot in the e-book, a paragraph in the e-book, a key paragraph in the e-book, a bookmark in the e-book, a note in the e-book, usage history data of the e-book, and comment data of the e-book; and an index in the plurality of indexes is an index created according to a data item in the database. This amounts to the human determining a character to search in the notebook character-based index. No additional limitations are present.
Claims 4 and 14 recites determining at least one match degree between a data item of the first index and the at least one data item; and determining the first weight based on the at least one match degree. This amounts to the human determining a match on the index for first book. No additional limitations are present.
Claims 5 and 15 recites wherein providing at least the portion of search results in the first sequence of search results and the second sequence of search results comprises: for a target search result in the first sequence of search results and the second sequence of search results, determining a global position of the target search result based on a local position of the target search result in the first sequence of search results or in the second sequence of search results, and the first weight and the second weight; and presenting, based on the global position, the target search result in global search results for responding to the search request. This amounts to the human determining a relative rank of match between the two indexes and weighing the first result more based on the higher rank. No additional limitations are present.
Claims 6 and 16 recites wherein the database comprises at least a portion of the following: an e-book, an audio e-book, information of an e-book, usage history data of an e-book, bookmark data in an e-book, and comment data of an e-book, and the method further comprises: determining a search range of the search request from the plurality of data ranges based on context information of the user inputting the search request; and wherein determining the first sequence of search results and the second sequence of search results that match the search request comprises: determining, in the search range, the first sequence of search results and the second sequence of search results that match the search request. This amounts to the human searching a date range in the two indexes to find a match. No additional limitations are present.
Claims 7 and 17 recite in response to detecting a user interaction of the user for a target search result in the at least the portion of search results, providing detailed data including the target search result. This amounts to the human searching a date range in the two indexes to find a match and providing the details on the indexed match. No additional limitations are present.
Claims 8 and 18 recite further comprising: in response to detecting a close request for closing the detailed data, returning to a page for providing the at least the portion of search results. This amounts to the human not presenting the details on the person’s request. No additional limitations are present.
Claims 9 and 19 recite wherein the plurality of indexes are updated in response to data updating in the database. This amounts to the human updating the index in his notebook in response to addendums issued for the books. No additional limitations are present.
Claims 10 recite wherein at least one index of the plurality indexes involved in the data updating in the plurality of indexes is updated, and the at least one index is updated based on at least one of the following: a full update mode and an incremental update mode. This amounts to the human updating the index in his notebook in response to addendums issued for the books. No additional limitations are present.
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.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selfe (US 11099469 B1) in further view of Hamby (US 9727595 B2).
With respect to claim 1, 11 and 20 Selfe teaches (Claim 1.) A method for searching data in an e-book reader, comprising: (Claim 11. )An electronic device, comprising: at least one processing unit (¶Col 13ll13-32(51) Various embodiments may be implemented fully or partially in software and/or firmware. This software and/or firmware may take the form of instructions contained in or on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Those instructions may then be read and executed by one or more processors to enable performance of the operations described herein. The instructions may be in any suitable form, such as but not limited to source code, compiled code, interpreted code, executable code, static code, dynamic code, and the like. Such a computer-readable medium may include any tangible non-transitory medium for storing information in a form readable by one or more computers, such as but not limited to read only memory (ROM); random access memory (RAM); magnetic disk storage media; optical storage media; a flash memory, etc. ); and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processing unit, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing unit, causing the electronic device to perform a method for searching data in an e-book reader, comprising (¶Col 13ll13-32(51) Various embodiments may be implemented fully or partially in software and/or firmware. This software and/or firmware may take the form of instructions contained in or on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Those instructions may then be read and executed by one or more processors to enable performance of the operations described herein. The instructions may be in any suitable form, such as but not limited to source code, compiled code, interpreted code, executable code, static code, dynamic code, and the like. Such a computer-readable medium may include any tangible non-transitory medium for storing information in a form readable by one or more computers, such as but not limited to read only memory (ROM); random access memory (RAM); magnetic disk storage media; optical storage media; a flash memory, etc. ): (Claim 20.) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, the computer program, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to implement a method for searching data in an e-book reader, comprising (¶Col 13ll13-32(51) Various embodiments may be implemented fully or partially in software and/or firmware. This software and/or firmware may take the form of instructions contained in or on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Those instructions may then be read and executed by one or more processors to enable performance of the operations described herein. The instructions may be in any suitable form, such as but not limited to source code, compiled code, interpreted code, executable code, static code, dynamic code, and the like. Such a computer-readable medium may include any tangible non-transitory medium for storing information in a form readable by one or more computers, such as but not limited to read only memory (ROM); random access memory (RAM); magnetic disk storage media; optical storage media; a flash memory, etc. ):
in response to a search request, identifying a search intent of a user based on the search request (Selfe ¶Col7ll34-56 S The one or more voice modules 250 may analyze the data 214 to convert audio data (e.g., when the data 214 includes audio data, such as voice utterances) [search request]to an intention (e.g., an intention to play music or audio books, an intention to ask a question, etc.) [intention]. The one or more voice modules 250 may identify the projector content 220 from the one or more projector content databases 252, and may identify the content 224 from the one or more content databases 254. The projector content 220 may include images (e.g., the image 230, the image 232, the image 234, the image 236), and the content 224 may include content to be presented by the one or more voice-enabled devices 208 in conjunction with the projector content 220 presented by the projector 222. The content 224 stored in the one or more content databases 254 may include e-book [e-book database]content, audio book content, music, video, game content, voice narrated commentary and/or answers to voice-uttered questions, and the like.));
Selfe does not explicitly disclose however Hamby teaches determining, based on the search intent, a first weight and a second weight of a first index and a second index respectively, of a plurality of indexes of a database of the e-book reader (Hamby ¶Claim 1. receiving, by one or more processors, a location search query comprising a textual string; parsing, by the one or more processors, the textual string to generate a set of search tokens; identifying a first location category index describing locations using a first plurality of fields [first index]; identifying a second location category index describing locations using a second plurality of fields including at least a common field with the first plurality of fields and a different field than the first plurality of fields [first index]; searching, by the one or more processors, the first location category index to select a first set of index search results [first sequence of results] by identifying locations in the first location category index that have one or more fields of the first plurality of fields at least partially matching a search token in the set of search tokens; identifying a first set of scoring weights designating a weight for each field in the first plurality of fields of the first location category index; scoring each index search result in the first set of index search results by scoring each field of the first plurality of fields that at least partially matches a search token in the set of search tokens according to the scoring weight for that field of the first set of scoring weights; searching, by the one or more processors, the second location category index to select a second set of index search results [first sequence of results] by identifying locations in the second location category index that have one or more fields of the second plurality of fields at least partially matching a search token in the set of search tokens; identifying a second set of scoring weights designating a weight for each field in the second plurality of fields of the second location category index, the common field designated with different weights by the first and second sets of scoring weights, the weights of the common field determined based on a relative importance of the common field to the respective location category index; scoring each index search result in the second set of index search results by scoring each field of the second plurality of fields that at least partially matches a search token in the set of search tokens according to the scoring weight for that field of the second set of scoring weights; and selecting, for the location [search results], an index search result of the first set of index search results or the second set of index search results based on the scoring of the first set of index search results [first weight] and the scoring of the second set of index search results[first weight]);
determining, by using the first index and the second index respectively, a first sequence of search results and a second sequence of search results that match the search request (Hamby ¶Claim 1. receiving, by one or more processors, a location search query comprising a textual string; parsing, by the one or more processors, the textual string to generate a set of search tokens; identifying a first location category index describing locations using a first plurality of fields [first index]; identifying a second location category index describing locations using a second plurality of fields including at least a common field with the first plurality of fields and a different field than the first plurality of fields [first index]; searching, by the one or more processors, the first location category index to select a first set of index search results [first sequence of results] by identifying locations in the first location category index that have one or more fields of the first plurality of fields at least partially matching a search token in the set of search tokens; identifying a first set of scoring weights designating a weight for each field in the first plurality of fields of the first location category index; scoring each index search result in the first set of index search results by scoring each field of the first plurality of fields that at least partially matches a search token in the set of search tokens according to the scoring weight for that field of the first set of scoring weights; searching, by the one or more processors, the second location category index to select a second set of index search results [first sequence of results] by identifying locations in the second location category index that have one or more fields of the second plurality of fields at least partially matching a search token in the set of search tokens; identifying a second set of scoring weights designating a weight for each field in the second plurality of fields of the second location category index, the common field designated with different weights by the first and second sets of scoring weights, the weights of the common field determined based on a relative importance of the common field to the respective location category index; scoring each index search result in the second set of index search results by scoring each field of the second plurality of fields that at least partially matches a search token in the set of search tokens according to the scoring weight for that field of the second set of scoring weights; and selecting, for the location [search results], an index search result of the first set of index search results or the second set of index search results based on the scoring of the first set of index search results [first weight] and the scoring of the second set of index search results[first weight])
and providing at least a portion of search results in the first sequence of search results and the second sequence of search results based on the first weight and the second weight(Hamby ¶Claim 1. receiving, by one or more processors, a location search query comprising a textual string; parsing, by the one or more processors, the textual string to generate a set of search tokens; identifying a first location category index describing locations using a first plurality of fields [first index]; identifying a second location category index describing locations using a second plurality of fields including at least a common field with the first plurality of fields and a different field than the first plurality of fields [first index]; searching, by the one or more processors, the first location category index to select a first set of index search results [first sequence of results] by identifying locations in the first location category index that have one or more fields of the first plurality of fields at least partially matching a search token in the set of search tokens; identifying a first set of scoring weights designating a weight for each field in the first plurality of fields of the first location category index; scoring each index search result in the first set of index search results by scoring each field of the first plurality of fields that at least partially matches a search token in the set of search tokens according to the scoring weight for that field of the first set of scoring weights; searching, by the one or more processors, the second location category index to select a second set of index search results [first sequence of results] by identifying locations in the second location category index that have one or more fields of the second plurality of fields at least partially matching a search token in the set of search tokens; identifying a second set of scoring weights designating a weight for each field in the second plurality of fields of the second location category index, the common field designated with different weights by the first and second sets of scoring weights, the weights of the common field determined based on a relative importance of the common field to the respective location category index; scoring each index search result in the second set of index search results by scoring each field of the second plurality of fields that at least partially matches a search token in the set of search tokens according to the scoring weight for that field of the second set of scoring weights; and selecting, for the location [search results], an index search result of the first set of index search results or the second set of index search results based on the scoring of the first set of index search results [first weight] and the scoring of the second set of index search results [first weight]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify ebook of Selfe to include the index search Hamby in order to speed up retrieval times and improve relevance.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selfe and Hamby in further view of Iyer (US 20230169080 A1).
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Selfe and Hamby don’t explicitly disclose however Iyer teaches wherein identifying the search intent of the user based on the search request comprises: determining, based on the search request and by using an intent identification model, at least one data item that the user expects to search for (Iyer ¶[0060] In the example shown in FIG. 4, the system may compute a first compatibility score between the intention term “shirt” [data item to search] 421 and its query context “I want a . . . to go with a blue pant;” and compute a second compatibility score between the intention term “blue pant” 422 and its query context “I want a shirt to go with a . . . .” [search request] Each of the first compatibility score and the second compatibility score may be computed based on a weighting model [intent identification model] pre-trained based on user historical search data with known primary intents. Then the system can compare the two compatibility scores and determine which one of the two intention terms 421, 422 is the primary intention term. In this case, the system may determine the “shirt” 421 is the primary intention term as it has a higher compatibility score. The system then generates search results including product items matching the primary intention term “shirt” 421, where items and/or ranking of the items in the search results may be based on the query context of the “shirt” 421, e.g. based on the other intention term “blue pant” 422.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify ebook of Selfe in view of the index search Hamby to include model of Iyer in order to decrease frictions of user interactions with voice assistants for searching ([0005], Iyer)
Claim(s) 3 and 13 (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selfe, Hamby and Iyer in further view of Heo (US 20140082466 A1).
With respect to claims 3 and 13 none of Selfe, Hamby and Iyer explicitly disclose however Heo teaches wherein the database comprises at least one of the following data items: a character in an e-book, a main character in the e-book, a time in the e-book, a place in the e-book, an event in the e-book, a title in the e-book, a plot in the e-book, a paragraph in the e-book, a key paragraph in the e-book, a bookmark in the e-book, a note in the e-book, usage history data of the e-book, and comment data of the e-book (¶[0058] An e-book may include one or more contents, e.g., text [notes, comments], images, motion pictures, flash images, audio data, etc. E-books may have been stored in the storage input 150. Alternatively, e-books may be downloaded via the communication unit 120 according to a user's request or a corresponding event, under the control of the controller 130. E-books may be published in PDF or ePUB format.¶[0074] Guide 1500 refers to logical guide information containing the content of an e-book. The guide information includes components of an e-book, such as a cover, a title, contents, indexes, references, explanatory notes, etc., and index information describing locations of contents in the e-book.);
and an index in the plurality of indexes is an index created according to a data item in the database (¶[0058] An e-book may include one or more contents, e.g., text [notes, comments], images, motion pictures, flash images, audio data, etc. E-books may have been stored in the storage input 150. Alternatively, e-books may be downloaded via the communication unit 120 according to a user's request or a corresponding event, under the control of the controller 130. E-books may be published in PDF or ePUB format.¶[0074] Guide 1500 refers to logical guide information containing the content of an e-book. The guide information includes components of an e-book, such as a cover, a title, contents, indexes, references, explanatory notes, etc., and index information describing locations of contents in the e-book.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify ebook of Selfe in view of the index search Hamby in view of model of Iyer to include indexing of Heo in order to increase retrieval times for relevant data.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selfe, Hamby, Iyer, Heo in further view of Hawking (US 20100057800 A1).
With respect to claims 4 and 14 none of Selfe, Hamby, Iyer and Heo explicitly disclose however Hawking teaches wherein determining the first weight of the first index comprises: determining at least one match degree between a data item of the first index and the at least one data item (Hawking ¶[0099] In this example, a snippet dictionary 330 contains one entry for each distinct annotation snippet, and postings in the snippet index 310 reference documents tagged by a particular snippet and include one or more weights (one shown here). A word dictionary 340 contains an entry for each distinct word used in annotations, and postings in the word index reference entries in the annotation dictionary and include a degree of match weight between the word and the snippet.);
and determining the first weight based on the at least one match degree (Hawking ¶[0099] In this example, a snippet dictionary 330 contains one entry for each distinct annotation snippet, and postings in the snippet index 310 reference documents tagged by a particular snippet and include one or more weights (one shown here). A word dictionary 340 contains an entry for each distinct word used in annotations, and postings in the word index reference entries in the annotation dictionary and include a degree of match weight between the word and the snippet.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify ebook of Selfe in view of the index search Hamby in view of model of Iyer in view of indexing of Heo to include match of Hawking in order to increase accuracy and ranking of retrieval data.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selfe, Hamby, in further view of Fume (US 20210173857 A1).
With respect to claims 5 and 15 none of Selfe, Hamby, Iyer and Higbie explicitly disclose however Hawking teaches wherein providing at least the portion of search results in the first sequence of search results and the second sequence of search results comprises: for a target search result in the first sequence of search results and the second sequence of search results, determining a global position of the target search result based on a local position of the target search result in the first sequence of search results or in the second sequence of search results, and the first weight and the second weight (Fume ¶Claim 6. The data generation device according to claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are configured to output the learning data further including a specified weight, and the one or more processors are configured to learn the ranking model so as to place a second search result having a larger value of the weight than that of a first search result in a position earlier in order than the first search result;
and presenting, based on the global position, the target search result in global search results for responding to the search request (Fume ¶Claim 7. The data generation device according to claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are configured to obtain the search results, and use the learned ranking model to determine the order of the search results; and output the search results in the determined order.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify ebook of Selfe in view of the index search Hamby to include global results of Fume in order to increase accuracy and ranking of retrieval data.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 17 and 18 (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selfe, Hamby, in further view of Liu (US 20180196855 A1).
With respect to claims 7 and 17 none of Selfe, Hamby explicitly disclose however Hawking teaches in response to detecting a user interaction of the user for a target search result in the at least the portion of search results, providing detailed data including the target search result (Liu ¶[0022] displaying a detail page of the search result according to a click operation for the search result.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify ebook of Selfe in view of the index search Hamby to include detailed data of Liu in order to provide updated search results as needed and streamlining user interaction.
With respect to claims 8 and 18 Liu further teaches in response to detecting a close request for closing the detailed data, returning to a page for providing the at least the portion of search results (Liu ¶[0115] In a specific implementation procedure, if the user clicks a close button on the detail page of the search result, this indicates that the detail page of the search result undergoes page skip. It is feasible to switch the current page from the detail page of the search result to other pages according to a special switching effect, for example, return to the search result page, or other third party pages.)
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 19 (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selfe, Hamby, in further view of Rodriguez (US 20100057711 A1).
With respect to claims 9 and 19 none of Selfe, Hamby explicitly disclose however Rodriquez teaches wherein the plurality of indexes are updated in response to data updating in the database (Rodriguez ¶[0018] In some embodiments, processing logic stores the index generated on the centralized server (processing block 114). As such, the centralized server may rely on the index in order to provide a preview or other information of the subset of data without further accessing the database. In some embodiments, processing logic may update the index in response to updates made to the subset of data in the database (processing block 116). Alternatively, processing logic may periodically check the database for updates to the subset of data. If processing logic finds updates to the subset of data, processing logic may extract the updated data in order to update the index.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify ebook of Selfe in view of the index search Hamby to include index updating of Rodriguez in order to speed up future searches.
With respect to claims 10 Rodriquez further teaches wherein at least one index of the plurality indexes involved in the data updating in the plurality of indexes is updated, and the at least one index is updated based on at least one of the following: a full update mode and an incremental update mode (Rodriguez ¶[0018] In some embodiments, processing logic stores the index generated on the centralized server (processing block 114). As such, the centralized server may rely on the index in order to provide a preview or other information of the subset of data without further accessing the database. In some embodiments, processing logic may update the index in response to updates made to the subset of data in the database (processing block 116). Alternatively, processing logic may periodically check the database for updates to the subset of data. If processing logic finds updates to the subset of data, processing logic may extract the updated data in order to update the index.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable, pending overcoming 101 rejections set forth in this office action, if written in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6 and 16 recite the limitations wherein the database comprises at least a portion of the following: a plurality of data ranges: an e-book, an audio e-book, information of an e-book, usage history data of an e-book, bookmark data in an e-book, and comment data of an e-book, and the method further comprises: determining a search range of the search request from the plurality of data ranges based on context information of the user inputting the search request; and wherein determining the first sequence of search results and the second sequence of search results that match the search request comprises: determining, in the search range, the first sequence of search results and the second sequence of search results that match the search request. The closest teaching comes from Murali who teaches “¶0055] For optimal performance, it is preferable to write all information to a database; however, this entails providing each user with database software to support the invention. The data may be stored locally or remotely, or on a portable drive or memory device, ¶[0070] In addition, the invention includes the ability to retrieve web sites and/or browsing threads by keyword and/or phrase. FIG. 13 is a screen capture illustrating a dialog tab that permits a user to perform research during a browsing session. The dialog includes a search tab 90 and an index tab 95. The user may perform a search to locate sites and browsing threads by inputting into the entry field 92 any keyword or phrase field to locate a match of the input keyword or phrase in the sites and/or browsing threads. The user may thereafter append search results to the current browsing thread using the append option 94. It is also possible to post the search results to a new browsing thread where the append option is unselected. Moreover, it is possible to restrict the search to a specific date range 96 and to specific data fields, such as Name, URL, Notes, Topic for a site and Notes and Topic for a browsing thread, or any combination thereof. The selection of specific data fields occurs by selecting appropriate fields in a dialog box (not shown) that would be activated upon selecting the advanced button 98 shown in FIG. 13. In addition, each field can be included or excluded using appropriate checkboxes in the dialog. Upon locating web sites that match the input search terms, the located sites are displayed in the site history list, while thread matches are displayed in the thread list of the browser history window.s,” However, none of Murali and other cited art teach and/or suggest the limitations as noted/underlined earlier with all supporting limitations thereof. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATHAR N PASHA whose telephone number is (408)918-7675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday Alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached on (571)272-5551. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ATHAR N PASHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights