DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed on 07/22/2026, and the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 2-20 are pending for examination as cited below.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In remarks applicant argues in substance that:
Applicant argues that Rubinstein, hereinafter “Rub”, fails to disclose, (i) a “set of default information types” that is “predefined for the entity class” and (ii) a “dynamically selected information type” selected based on historical user activity. Applicant further contends that Rub’s offline rankings concern only particular entities, rather than an entity class, and that Rub’s actions and providers are not “information types.” The arguments do not distinguish the claimed subject matter from Rub when the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
Claim construction: The term “information type” is not limited in claim 2 to a particular taxonomy, display-field format, or class-level data schema.
The specification describes an information type broadly as “a type of information that corresponds to an aspect of or attribute for or about an entity.” Applicant’s own quoted description identifies this broad framing. Under that construction, Rub’s action and provider information associated with an entity are types of information about the entity: they respectively identify available functions/transactions and service sources capable of executing those function.
Rub expressly defines (i) an action as an indication of an action, task, or transaction that may be performed, such as through a network and (ii) a provider as a company or service provider that executes, initiates, implements or coordinates the corresponding action (Rub in [0027]).
Thus, “rent”, “buy”, “stream”, “print,” “order,” or “make reservation,” along with their associated providers, are information about available aspects, functions, and service options for entity represented in the search result item.
Applicant’s proposed distinction between an executable action and an information type improperly imports a narrower meaning into the term “information type.” Claim 2 does not require that an information type be limited to static descriptive metadata such as genre, release date, or entity attributes. Rather, the claim requires information types associated with the entity. Rub’s actions and providers are associated with the entity and are provided in response to a query as information for the entity.
Default Information Types:
Applicant argues that offline ranking does not disclose a set of information types “predefined for the entity class.”
This argument is not persuasive because it conflates a predefined category of information with a predetermined, identical result for every possible entity instance.
Rub teaches predefined entity-set structures. Each entity set includes an entity; an action corresponding with the entity; and a provider corresponding with the action and/or entity (Rub, [0044]). Rub further depicts and describes entity sets as structured columns or fields for Entity, Action and Provider. See fig.3, [0045]. These recurring types of entity associated information, actions and providers are predefined before a particular user enters a query and are used as the available categories from which corresponding content is selected and presented.
Rub also expressly teaches a displayed set of actions corresponding with an entity and a set of providers associated with each action. Rub [0020]. For example, fig.4 displays a flight status entity together with action information “check-in,” “book shuttle,” “rent car,” and “eat in Seattle” and provider information for the respective actions. Run [0032]; fig.4. The recurring action and provider categories are thus predefined entity associated information types.
Applicant’s assertion that an airline cannot print every boarding card, or a rental site cannot stream every movie, does not address the rejection. The rejection does not rely on the finding that every provider supports every action for every entity. Instead, the rejection relies on Run’s teaching that action information and provider information are predefined categories of information associated with the relevant entity type and then populated, selected, or ranked using data for the particular entity. A default information type need not require every instance of an entity class to have identical provider content or identical actions.
The pertinent entity class may be a movie related entity. Rub teaches recurring action types for that class, including “share movie,” “rent movie,” and “buy movie.” Fig.9, [0067]. Different movie instances may be associated with different providers or ranked differently, but such instance specific differences do not negate the fact that the action/provider information types are predefined categories used to organize information for movie entities.
Offline ranking:
Applicant correctly notes that Rub’s offline rankings may rank specific entities, actions, and providers. However, that does not distinguish the claimed “set of default information types predefined for the entity class.”
Rub teaches that entity sets, or portions of entity sets, are ranked before receipt of a user query; this is expressly termed an “offline rank.” Rub [0050]. The portions subject to offline ranking include an entity set, an entity, an action, and/or a provider. Rub further explains that actions and/or providers most relevant to a particular entity generally receive a higher ranking. These teachings establish that the system maintains, prior to a query, entity associated actions and provider information and their rankings. Rub additionally teaches that: “offline ranking of entity sets, or portions thereof, can influence the presentation of entities, actions, and/or providers in association with a search result item.” (Run, [0052]).
Dynamically selected information type:
Applicant’s contention that Rub fails to disclose a “dynamically selected information type” is also not persuasive. Run teaches online ranking that is generated after a query is received ([0056]). The online ranking is used to determine which entities, actions, and/or providers to display and in some cases the display order. Rub expressly gives the example of an entity having ten associated actions but only five being selected for presentation; the five actions having the highest rankings are selected. Such query responsive selection constitutes dynamic selection of entity associated action/provider information.
Historical user activity:
Applicant further argues that user interest, search results and query logs cannot establish the claimed historical user activity limitation.
Examiner respectfully disagree because Rub expressly teaches that ranking may be based on: “click through rates in query logs”; “user history, including search history, navigation history, and query logs”; and “a combination of those factors.” [0052]
Rub also teaches using a past query log associated with the user, a group of users, or all users to recognize query intent; user interests may additionally or alternatively be used to determine query intent [0054]. These disclosures expressly teach historical user activity and its use to determine or influence the selection/ranking of entities, actions and providers.
The rejection does not rely on the proposition that future query’s search result items or a user’s real-time interest themselves must be known before the query. Rather, the rejection relies on Rub’s express disclosure of past query log, click-through rates, search history, navigation history, and user interest as ranking indicators or query-intent inputs [0052-0054]).
For the reasons above, applicants’ arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Rub, discloses a structured entity-set system in which predefined categories of entity-associated information, including actions and providers are maintained and ranked before a query; thereafter, query-responsive online ranking dynamically selects which actions/providers are presented. Rub further teaches using historical user activity, including query logs, click-through rates, search history, navigation history and user interest in the ranking/selection process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rubinstein et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0117058 A1), hereinafter “Rub”.
As to claim 2, Rub discloses, a method (Rub, Abstract), comprising:
receiving a query from a client device relating to an entity of an entity class, wherein the entity class is a category of entities including the entity (Rub, [0018], [0019], [0036] Entity sets having an entity that matches the determined query intent are identified. Each entity set includes an entity, an action corresponding with the entity, and a provider);
generating a response that includes a plurality of regions for the entity (Rub, [0042]), the plurality of regions structured according to the information types associated with the entity (Rub, [0050-0052]), populating the plurality of regions with information of the entity for the information types and formatting the plurality of regions (Rub, [0061]),
the information types including a set of default information types and a dynamically selected information type (Rub, [0003], action and /or providers selected for display…can be determined using offline rankings, online rankings, a query log, a search result item...a user interest etc. [0018], a query logs is utilized to rank the entities, and /or the providers… in accordance with an expected relevance.), wherein:
the set of default information types is predefined for the entity class, and the dynamically selected information type is selected based on historical user activity with respect to the entity (Rub, [0003], action and /or providers selected for display…can be determined using offline rankings, online rankings, a query log, a search result item...a user interest etc. [0018], a query logs is utilized to rank the entities, and /or the providers… in accordance with an expected relevance.); and
transmitting the plurality of regions, including information of the entity for the set of default information types and the dynamically selected information type, to the client device for display by the client device (Rub, fig.2, [0033], the user device 210… the search service 212… communicate through a network 216.., [0020], the graphical user interface ..is displayed to a search result page, [0028], when a search result page is displayed to a user in response to a user query…).
As to claim 3. Rub discloses, wherein the set of default information types is distinct from the dynamically selected information type. (Rub, fig. 4-9 [0027], [0028], Rub discloses static, entity-intrinsic information (e.g. cuisine, hours, revies, cast, synopsis) that is always displayed for the entity. Rub, [0003], [0018], [0019] also discloses, dynamically selected actions/providers chosen using query logs, user interest, and ranking indicators. Because these two categories originate from two different sources, are selected by different mechanisms, and serve different roles, the reference inherently teaches that the default information is distinct from the dynamically selected information type.).
As to claim 4. Rub discloses, wherein the set of default information types includes information types predefined for the entity (Rub, fig. 4-9 [0027], [0028], Rub discloses static, entity-intrinsic information (e.g. cuisine, hours, revies, cast, synopsis) that is always displayed for the entity.).
As to claim 5, Rub discloses, wherein the dynamically selected information type is based on information requested for the entity (Rub, [0003], [0018], the reference explicitly states that dynamic information (actions/providers) is selected using query logs, query intent, user interest and search result items. These signals represent what information users request for the entity. [0019], the system identifies the entity and then selects actions/providers in response to the user’s query. Further, the fig 4, 7 and 8 show dynamic actions that appear only when the user requests information about that specific entity).
As to claim 6, Rub discloses, wherein the historical user activity with respect to the entity includes user-requested information for the entity (Rub, [0003], [0018], the reference explicitly states that dynamic information (actions/providers) is selected using query logs, query intent, user interest and search result items. These signals represent what information users request for the entity. [0019], the system identifies the entity and then selects actions/providers in response to the user’s query. Further, the fig 4, 7 and 8 show dynamic actions that appear only when the user requests information about that specific entity).
As to claim 7, Rub discloses, wherein the historical user activity with respect to the entity includes queries about the entity (Rub fig.2, [0003], [0018], query logs are records of past user queries i.e. historical user activity. [0019], query intent from user queries and fig.4, 7, 8 is selected because of past queries about that entity.).
As to claim 8, Rub discloses, wherein the information of the entity for the set of default information types and the dynamically selected information type is obtained from an information repository having information associated with entities (Rub, [0018], entity set …a query log is utilized to rank the entities, the action and /or provider….[and] the entity sets… are input into a database. [0027], are directed to providing relevant actions and/or providers in association with entities…. Fig.2 shows dedicated entity-set database.).
As to claim 9. Rub discloses, wherein the plurality of regions are structured according to the information types.(Rub, fig.7, entity metadata (cuisine, price, hours), reviews region (review site A, review site B review site C), actions region (i.e. reservations, directions) and location/contact region (address, phone number). [0020], the graphical user interface includes a first display area…and a second display area… configured for displaying a set of actions…).
As to claim 10. Rub disclose the invention as above including, wherein the response includes a plurality of links to information sources for the information of the entity (Rub, fig.4, 5, 7 and 9, [0032]).
Claim 11 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 2 above.
Claim 12 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 3 above.
Claim 13 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 4 above.
Claim 14 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 5above.
Claim 15 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 6 above.
Claim 16 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 7 above.
Claim 17 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 8 above.
Claim 18 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 9 above.
Claim 19 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 10 above.
As to claim 20, Rub discloses the invention as in parent claims above including, wherein the response includes a plurality of links to information sources for the information of the entity (Rub, fig.4, 7, 8, [0028], groupings are part of the entity’s default representation and are therefore, default information types structured in primary/secondary pairs.).
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,706,318 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because see the table below:
Patent No.: 11,706,318 Instant Application No.: 18/952,518
8. A search system comprising:
at least one processor; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the search system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a client device, a search query that includes a first entity, the first
entity belonging to a viewable media category,
identifying a set of predefined information types associated with the viewable
media category,
populating a first region of a search result page with information about the first
entity that corresponds to predefined information types in the set of
predefined information types,
responsive to determining that the first entity is available for streaming or
downloading, populating a second region of the search result page with a
location-based information type, wherein the location-based information
type is distinct from the set of predefined information types, and is
populated using information about at least one location from which the
first entity can be streamed or downloaded, and
transmitting the search result page to the client device for display on the client
device.
11. (New) A system, comprising:
at least one processor; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations including:
receiving a query from a client device relating to an entity of an entity class, wherein the entity class is a category of entities including the entity;
generating a response to the query that includes a plurality of regions for the entity structured according to information types associated with the entity, the information types including a set of default information types and a dynamically selected information type, wherein:
the set of default information types is predefined for the entity class, and the dynamically selected information type is selected based on historical user activity with respect to the entity; and
transmitting the plurality of regions, including information of the entity for the set of default information types and the dynamically selected information type, to the client device for display by the client device.
1. A method comprising:
receiving, from a client device, a search query that includes a first entity, the first entity belonging to a viewable media category;
identifying a set of predefined information types associated with the viewable media
category;
populating a first region of a search result page with information about the first entity that corresponds to predefined information types in the set of predefined information types;
responsive to determining that the first entity is available for streaming or downloading, populating a second region of the search result page with a location-based information type, wherein the location-based information type is distinct from the set of predefined information types, and is populated using information about at least one location from which the first entity can be streamed or downloaded; and
transmitting the search result page to the client device for display on the client device.
2. (New) A method, comprising:
receiving a query from a client device relating to an entity of an entity class, wherein the entity class is a category of entities including the entity;
generating a response to the query that includes a plurality of regions for the entity structured according to information types associated with the entity, the information types including a set of default information types and a dynamically selected information type, wherein:
the set of default information types is predefined for the entity class, and the dynamically selected information type is selected based on historical user activity with respect to the entity; and
transmitting the plurality of regions, including information of the entity for the set of default information types and the dynamically selected information type, to the client device for display by the client device.
From the above table it can be seen, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both set of claims anticipate/complement each other and intended to solve the same issue/problem.
Both sets of claims disclose system and method for presenting information of various information types about an entity in a structured information page, in which some of the information types included in the structured information page are dynamically selected for inclusion in the structured information page in accordance with historical user activity. Such methods and systems provide an effective way to present to user’s entity information that is organized and which includes information that users are more likely to consider important.
The dependent claims 2-10, 12-20 carry the deficiencies from the base claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Spivey et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0117258 A1) is one of the most pertinent art in the field of invention and discloses, a method to deploy content to a web server may include selecting multiple files to deploy to one or more web servers, selecting one or more destinations for the one or more multiple files, copying one or more existing files from the one or more web servers to be replaced by the multiple files, creating a backup batch using the one or more existing files and publishing the multiple files to the one or more web servers. Other embodiments are described and claimed.
Kwan et al. (Patent No.: 9311427 B2), is yet another one of the most pertinent art in the field of invention and discloses, method for automatically generating a mobile-optimized website from an existing www. website, including automated matching of suitable mobile-optimized headers, automated generation of a matching color scheme/gradients/shadows based on a limited subset of colors from the www. website, automated addition of device-specific autodetection and configuration code in mobile web pages that include audio tags. Additional embodiments of the present invention include a mobile website design studio for editing and configuring a mobile website, including configuration and selection options for the mobile website header, layout, color scheme, and functional widget content.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAUQIR HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1247. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 - 8:00 with IFP.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571 272-7304. 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.
/Tauqir Hussain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights