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 .
The action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment filed on 1/16/2026.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 13-19, 21-22 are pending.
Claim 8, 10-12, 20 are cancelled.
Specification Amendments
The specification amendment filed on 1/16/2026 have been acknowledged and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections previously made and the amended claims filed on 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In view of the claim amendment and upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made
Claim objections
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered
In response to the arguments, it is submitted that in view of the amendment filed, the objects as set forth in the previous office action are hereby withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 USC 112
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered
In response to the arguments, it is submitted that in view of the amendment filed, the rejections as set forth in the previous office action are hereby withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 USC102 and/or 103
First, in response to Applicant request on clarification of claim 17, it is submitted that while a claim 17 was not being listed in the header “Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-14, 18, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sachindran et al (Pub No.US 2024/0086489) hereinafter Sachindran” of the previous office action, claim 17 was being rejected with limitation mappings along with claim 5 under 35 USC 102 rejection in the previous office action.
Secondly, Applicant argued that cited references fail to teach amended independent claims 1, 13 & 22, specifically the amended limitations of “determining at least one third search parameter value corresponding to the search context, wherein the at least one third search parameter value corresponds to a parameter value range derived from a distance between the first search parameter value and the second search parameter value, the parameter value range including or excluding the first and second search parameter values, and the parameter value range extending beyond the first and second search parameter values” recited in the claims.
In response to the arguments, it is submitted that while the intended concepts of instant application may be “directed to an improved technique for handling related search requests by evaluating multiple searches to infer a search context and proactively preparing search results for a subsequent request… derives a third search parameter value from prior search activity and stores corresponding results in a cache so that a later search can be served efficiently from the cache rather than requiring a new search operation….derives the third search parameter value as a parameter value range based on a distance between the first and second search parameter values, and the parameter value range extending beyond the first and second search parameter values…distance represents a measure of dissimilarity or separation between the parameter values of the first and second search requests, such as a numerical difference, and/or any other suitable types of distances, including distances related to strings (e.g., a Hamming distance, a Levenshtein distance, a longest common subsequence (LCS) distance or another type of edit distance between strings… determines a range of parameter values that extends beyond the specific values used in the first and second searches and that may include or exclude those values (e.g., depending on the determined distance). The parameter value range therefore represents a set of related parameter values that are inferred to be relevant to the user's evolving search behavior, rather than a single predicted query completion. By obtaining and caching search results for this derived parameter value range in advance...reducing latency and processing overhead and improving overall search performance”, however, the cited amended limitations Applicant argued about merely recite a step of “determining third search parameter value that corresponds to the search context”, and such determining does not require any steps in the intended concepts, E.g. the claimed determining step does not require any searches evaluating, or deriving the third search parameter as a parameter range, according to the claim language presented.
Also, nowhere in the claims recite any step of evaluating multiple searches to infer a search context and proactively preparing search results for a subsequent request, derive a third search parameter value from prior search activity and stores corresponding results in a cache so that a later search can be served efficiently from the cache rather than requiring a new search operation, derives the third search parameter value as a parameter value range based on a distance between the first and second search parameter value, having a distance represents a measure of dissimilarity or separation between the parameter values of the first and second search requests, determine a range of parameter value or any of the intended concepts. Hence it is not required to address these steps or intended concepts that are not presented in the claims during examination.
Besides, the additional elements of “wherein the at least one third search parameter value corresponds to a parameter value range derived from a distance between the first search parameter value and the second search parameter value, the parameter value range including or excluding the first and second search parameter values, and the parameter value range extending beyond the first and second search parameter values” recited in the amended limitations are directed to describing the parameter value range, which are directed to nonfunctional descriptive data materials that describe parameter value range that corresponds to the third search parameter value. These data materials are not functionally involved in the steps recited that would impact the outcome. All claimed steps (i.e. receiving, determining, d obtaining, retrieving and returning) would be performed the same regardless of whether the third search parameter value corresponds to a parameter value range derived from a distance or not, and regardless whether the parameter value range include or excluding the first and second search parameter values or not. Similarly, all claimed steps would be performed the same regardless of the parameter value range extending beyond the first and second search parameter values or not.
Such nonfunctional descriptive data materials are not limited to the elements of the intended concept during examination since those concepts not being presented in the claim as stated above. E.g. it would have been improper to interpret the parameter value range in the claim as “a range of parameter values that extends beyond the specific values used in the first and second searches and that may include or exclude those values (e.g., depending on the determined distance)” as intended by the Applicant since nowhere in the claims require the parameter value range being such intended range according to the language presented. Similarly, it would have been improper to interpret the distance in the claim as “a distance between the first search parameter value” in the amended limitations as the intended distance that represents a measure of dissimilarity or separation between the parameter values of the first and second search requests” as intended by the Applicant since nowhere in the claims require the claimed distance being a measure of dissimilarity or separation between the parameter values of the first and second search requests according to the language presented.
Further, it is submitted that the cited amended limitations are being properly addressed by the new ground(s) of rejection along with other limitations in the independent claims; see rejection below for detail
Furthermore, it is submitted that all limitations in claims--including those not specifically addressed in the Applicant’s remarks--are properly addressed. The reason is set forth in the rejections; see below for detail.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 13-19, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachindran et al (Pub No. US 2024/0086489, hereinafter Sachindran) in view of Nahamoo et al (Pub No.US 2021/0406735, hereinafter Nahamoo).
Sachindran and Nahamoo are cited in the previous office action.
With respect to claim 1, Sachindran discloses a method for handling search requests at a search platform (abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, from a client, a first search request indicating at least one first search parameter value ([0012], [0017], [0020], [0038], [095], Fig 1-2 & 4A-5: receiving a 1st request indicating at least one first search parameter value represented by a text character of a search input that the user enters for searching);
receiving, from the client, a second search request indicating at least one second search parameter value, wherein the second search value differs from the first search value ([0012], [0017], [0020], [0027], [0038], Fig 1-2 & 4A-5: receive a second request indicating at least one 2nd search parameter represented by a second text character that is different from the 1st character as the user enters additional text characters of the search input);
determining a search context based on an evaluation of the at least one first search parameter value and the at least second search parameter value ([0017], [0020-0022], [0025], [0095], Fig 1-2 & 5: determine a search context represented by a user intent based on an evaluation of the receive text characters of the user input);
determining at least one third search parameter value corresponding to the search context ([0017], [0020], [0025], [0038], [0045], [0060], Fig 1-2 & 4A-5: determine at least one 3rd search parameter value represent by a semantic label or predictive search characteristic correspond to the search intent);
determining if a cache accessible to the search platform stores at least a given number of search results for the at least one third search parameter value ([0017], [0022-0025]: [0038], [0040],[0061], [0099-0101]: Fig 1-2 & 5: determine whether a cache, e.g. pre-fetch store, stores at least a given number of search result for the 3rd parameter value represented by the suggestions or data in the pre-fetch, and that given number may be any number of search results):
in response to determining that the cache does not store at least the given number of search results for the at least one third search parameter value, obtaining at least one search result for the at least one third search parameter value for storing in the cache ([0022], [0024], [0061], [0076-0078], [0083-0085], [0099], Fig 1-2 & 5: obtain by pre-fetch at least one search result for the 3rd parameter value for storing cache when determine that the results is not being stored in the pre-fetch store );
receiving, from the client, a third search request indicating at least the third search parameter value ([0017], [0027], [0060], [0078], Fig 1-2 & 5: receiving a third request indicating at least the 3rd search parameter value represented by a 3rd text character of a search input as user enters more for searching);
retrieving at least one search result for the third search parameter value from the cache ([0022], [0024], [00071], [0099-0102], Fig 2 & 4A-5: retrieving at least one result for the 3rd search parameter value from the cache as the result is being loaded from the cache to a result page to be display at a user device);
returning the at least one retrieved search result to the client ([0022], [0024], [0071], [0099-0102], Fig 2 & 4A-5: return the at least one retrieved result as the result page with the result subset is being displayed to the user).
Sachindran does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one third search parameter value corresponds to a parameter value range derived from a distance between the first search parameter value and the second search parameter value, the parameter value range including or excluding the first and second search parameter values, and the parameter value range extending beyond the first and second search parameter values.
However, these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive data materials that describe parameter value range that corresponds to the third search parameter value. These data materials are not functionally involved in the steps recited that would impact the outcome. All claimed steps (i.e. receiving, determining, d obtaining, retrieving and returning) would be performed the same regardless of whether the third search parameter value corresponds to a parameter value range derived from a distance or not, and regardless whether the parameter value range include or excluding the first and second search parameter values or not. Similarly, all claimed steps would be performed the same regardless of the parameter value range extending beyond the first and second search parameter values or not. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have any parameter value range correspond to the third search parameter value because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed, and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Also, Nahamoo discloses wherein the at least one third search parameter value corresponds to a parameter value range derived from a distance between the first search parameter value and the second search parameter value, the parameter value range including or excluding the first and second search parameter values, and the parameter value range extending beyond the first and second search parameter values ([0018], [0129], [0135]: a 3rd search parameter value corresponds to a parameter value range derived from a distance. The distance indicates similarity range between the 1st & 2nd parameter values, which either includes or excludes the 1st & 2nd search parameter values based on the similarity of the 1st, 2nd & 3rd parameter values with respect to a similarity threshold, and range extends beyond the 1st & 2nd search parameter values for at least more parameter values are being involved in the range).
Since both Sachindran and Nahamoo are from the same field of endeavor because both are directed to using a cache in a search process, which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine their teachings by incorporate distance determination for search parameters with respect to similarity processing of Nahamoo into Sachindran for handing search request as claimed. The motivation to combine is to facilitate quick and efficient determination of relevance information in query processing for the users (Sachindran, [0002]; Nahamoo, [0002).
With respect to claim 13, Sachindran discloses a computing system (abstract) comprising:
a processor (Fig 6); and
a computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform a set of operations comprising for handling search requests at a search platform (Fig 6), the set of operations comprising:
receiving, from a client, a first search request indicating at least one first search parameter value ([0012], [0017], [0020], [0038], [095], Fig 1-2 & 4A-5: receiving a 1st request indicating at least one first search parameter value represented by a text character of a search input that the user enters for searching);
receiving, from the client, a second search request indicating at least one second search parameter value, wherein the second search value differs from the first search value ([0012], [0017], [0020], [0027], [0038], Fig 1-2 & 4A-5: receive a second request indicating at least one 2nd search parameter represented by a second text character that is different from the 1st character as the user enters additional text characters of the search input);
determining a search context based on an evaluation of the at least one first search parameter value and the at least second search parameter value ([0017], [0020-0022], [0025], [0095], Fig 1-2 & 5: determine a search context represented by a user intent based on an evaluation of the receive text characters of the user input);
determining at least one third search parameter value corresponding to the search context ([0017], [0020], [0025], [0038], [0045], [0060], Fig 1-2 & 4A-5: determine at least one 3rd search parameter value represent by a semantic label or predictive search characteristic correspond to the search intent);
determining if a cache accessible to the search platform stores at least a given number of search results for the at least one third search parameter value ([0017], [0022-0025]: [0038], [0040], [0061], [0099-0101]: Fig 1-2 & 5: determine whether a cache, e.g. pre-fetch store, stores at least a given number of search result for the 3rd parameter value represented by the suggestions or data in the pre-fetch, and that given number may be any number of search results):
in response to determining that the cache does not store at least the given number of search results for the at least one third search parameter value, obtaining at least one search result for the at least one third search parameter value for storing in the cache ([0022], [0024], [0061], [0076-0078], [0083-0085], [0099], Fig 1-2 & 5: obtain by pre-fetch at least one search result for the 3rd parameter value for storing cache when determine that the results is not being stored in the pre-fetch store );
receiving, from the client, a third search request indicating at least the third search parameter value ([0017], [0027], [0060], [0078], Fig 1-2 & 5: receiving a third request indicating at least the 3rd search parameter value represented by a 3rd text character of a search input as user enters more for searching);
retrieving at least one search result for the third search parameter value from the cache ([0022], [0024], [00071], [0099-0102], Fig 2 & 4A-5: retrieving at least one result for the 3rd search parameter value from the cache as the result is being loaded from the cache to a result page to be display at a user device);
returning the at least one retrieved search result to the client ([0022], [0024], [0071], [0099-0102], Fig 2 & 4A-5: return the at least one retrieved result as the result page with the result subset is being displayed to the user).
Sachindran does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one third search parameter value corresponds to a parameter value range derived from a distance between the first search parameter value and the second search parameter value, the parameter value range including or excluding the first and second search parameter values, and the parameter value range extending beyond the first and second search parameter values.
However, these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive data materials that describe parameter value range that corresponds to the third search parameter value. These data materials are not functionally involved in the steps recited that would impact the outcome. All claimed steps (i.e. receiving, determining, d obtaining, retrieving and returning) would be performed the same regardless of whether the third search parameter value corresponds to a parameter value range derived from a distance or not, and regardless whether the parameter value range include or excluding the first and second search parameter values or not. Similarly, all claimed steps would be performed the same regardless of the parameter value range extending beyond the first and second search parameter values or not. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have any parameter value range correspond to the third search parameter value because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the system claimed, and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Also, Nahamoo discloses wherein the at least one third search parameter value corresponds to a parameter value range derived from a distance between the first search parameter value and the second search parameter value, the parameter value range including or excluding the first and second search parameter values, and the parameter value range extending beyond the first and second search parameter values ([0018], [0129], [0135]: a 3rd search parameter value corresponds to a parameter value range derived from a distance. The distance indicates similarity range between the 1st & 2nd parameter values, which either includes or excludes the 1st & 2nd search parameter values based on the similarity of the 1st, 2nd & 3rd parameter values with respect to a similarity threshold, and range extends beyond the 1st & 2nd search parameter values for at least more parameter values are being involved in the range).
Since both Sachindran and Nahamoo are from the same field of endeavor because both are directed to using a cache in a search process, which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine their teachings by incorporate distance determination for search parameters with respect to similarity processing of Nahamoo into Sachindran for handing search request as claimed. The motivation to combine is to facilitate quick and efficient determination of relevance information in query processing for the users (Sachindran, [0002]; Nahamoo, [0002).
With respect to claims 2 and 14, the combined teachings of Sachindran and Nahamoo further discloses receiving, from the client, one or more further requests respectively indicating at least a further search parameter value (Sachindran [0012], [0017], [0020], [0027], [0038], Fig 1-2 & 4A-5; Nahamoo, [0068-0069], [0133]: receive a further request indicating at further search parameter represented by an additional text character as the user enters additional text characters of the search input);
determining the search context based on an evaluation of the further search parameter value (Sachindran, [0017], [0020-0022], [0025], [0095], Fig 1-2 & 5; Nahamoo, [0068-0069], [0133]: determine the search context represented by a user intent based on an evaluation of the further receive text characters of the user input);
With respect to claims 3 and 15, the combined teachings of Sachindran and Nahamoo further discloses wherein determining the search context comprises determining the distance between the first search parameter value and the second search parameter value (Nahamoo , [0018], [0065-0066], [0090], [0129]: compute a distance between the values via similarity determination);
determining that additional search parameter values in the first search request and in the second search request are identical (Sachindran, [0018], ]0020], [0027], [0038], Fig 4A-5; Nahamoo, [0065-0069], [0129], [0135]: determine that additional search parameter values in both 1st and 2nd requests as the user inputs additional text characters)
determining a potential parameter value range for the at least one third search parameter value based on the distance between the first search parameter value and the second search parameter value and the identical additional search parameter values(Sachindran, [0018], ]0020], [0027], [0038], Fig 4A-5; Nahamoo, [0065-0069], [0129], [0135], [00143-0144]:determine a potential parameter value range for the 3rd terms based on the similarity determination via distance between values and relationships in view of the similarity determination via the intent).
With respect to claims 4 and 16, the combined teachings of Sachindran and Nahamoo further disclose wherein determining the search context comprises: determining that the distance between a search parameter value of a certain search parameter in the first search request and a search parameter value of the certain search parameter in the second search request have the distance beyond a given threshold (Sachindran, [0064-0066], [0071]; Nahamoo, [0033], [0065-0068]: determine similarity via a distance determination between the values and threshold);
discarding the certain search parameter from determining the search context (Sachindran, [0020-0022], [0040], [0062-0066]; Nahamoo, [0012], [0018], [0065-0068], [0085]: discard the certain search parameter, such as those not limited to the criteria, from determining the search context via filtering).
With respect to claims 5 and 17, the combined teachings of Sachindran and Nahamoo further discloses wherein the third search parameter value is a value for a same search parameter of the first search parameter value and the second search parameter value, or wherein the third search parameter value is a value for a different search parameter than the search parameter of the first search parameter value and the second search parameter value (It appears that the limitations are directed to non-functional descriptive material that describe what the 3rd search value is yet not functionally impacting the claimed steps; Sachindran, [0020-0021], [0038], [0061], [0066], Fig 4A-5; Nahamoo, [0068-0069], [0133]: the third search parameter may be a value for a same search parameter as the 1st and 2nd parameters values as all are directed to a same search intent or correspond to a typeahead suggestion that parameterized the search. The third search parameter may be also value for a different search parameter as the 1st and 2nd parameters values as all are directed to a different search intent that parameterized the search as the predicted 3rd value may be different from the user input 3rd input value).
With respect to claims 6 and 18, the combined teachings of Sachindran and Nahamoo further discloses receiving, from the client, a feedback indication for the at least one returned search result (Sachindran, [0017], [0043], [0027], [0060], Fig 4A-5; Nahamoo, [0068], [0076]: receive a user feedback indication for at least one search result, including and not limited to selecting a suggested search result, or continue entering);
storing the feedback indication for future search context determinations (Sachindran, [0040], [0045], [0061], [0066]; Nahamoo, [0068], [0076]: store the feedback indication for further search context/intent determination represented by subsequent interaction in a same session via machine learning).
With respect to claims 7 and 19, the combined teachings of Sachindran and Nahamoo further discloses wherein determining the search context comprises: evaluating search parameter value distances and identical search parameter values from past search requests of the client and/or of other clients (Nahamoo, [0018], [0065-0066], [0090]: evaluate distances of the values represented by the data for similarities from the past QA of use and/or other user and using machine learning, as further disclosed in [0129] & [01235]).
With respect to claims 9 and 21 the combined teachings of Sachindran and Nahamoo further discloses wherein a level of generality of the at least one third search parameter value is derived from a similarity of the first search parameter value and the second search parameter value (It appears that the limitations are directed to non-functional descriptive material that describe what the 3rd search value is yet not functionally impacting the claimed steps; Sachindran, [0020-0021], [0038], [0061], [0066], Fig 4A-5; Nahamoo, [0065-0069], [0129], [0135]: the 3rd search parameter may be any value that derive from a similarity with respect to intent or domain related to the 1st and 2nd values).
With respect to claim 22, Sachindran discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program instructions that, when executed by at least one computing device (Fig 6), causes the at least one computing to perform a method for handling search requests at a search platform (abstract), the method comprising
receiving, from a client, a first search request indicating at least one first search parameter value ([0012], [0017], [0020], [0038], [095], Fig 1-2 & 4A-5: receiving a 1st request indicating at least one first search parameter value represented by a text character of a search input that the user enters for searching);
receiving, from the client, a second search request indicating at least one second search parameter value, wherein the second search value differs from the first search value ([0012], [0017], [0020], [0027], [0038], Fig 1-2 & 4A-5: receive a second request indicating at least one 2nd search parameter represented by a second text character that is different from the 1st character as the user enters additional text characters of the search input);
determining a search context based on an evaluation of the at least one first search parameter value and the at least second search parameter value ([0017], [0020-0022], [0025], [0095], Fig 1-2 & 5: determine a search context represented by a user intent based on an evaluation of the receive text characters of the user input);
determining at least one third search parameter value corresponding to the search context ([0017], [0020], [0025], [0038], [0045], [0060], Fig 1-2 & 4A-5: determine at least one 3rd search parameter value represent by a semantic label or predictive search characteristic correspond to the search intent);
determining if a cache accessible to the search platform stores at least a given number of search results for the at least one third search parameter value ([0017], [0022-0025]: [0038], [0040],[0061], [0099-0101]: Fig 1-2 & 5: determine whether a cache, e.g. pre-fetch store, stores at least a given number of search result for the 3rd parameter value represented by the suggestions or data in the pre-fetch, and that given number may be any number of search results):
in response to determining that the cache does not store at least the given number of search results for the at least one third search parameter value, obtaining at least one search result for the at least one third search parameter value for storing in the cache ([0022], [0024], [0061], [0076-0078], [0083-0085], [0099], Fig 1-2 & 5: obtain by pre-fetch at least one search result for the 3rd parameter value for storing cache when determine that the results is not being stored in the pre-fetch store );
receiving, from the client, a third search request indicating at least the third search parameter value ([0017], [0027], [0060], [0078], Fig 1-2 & 5: receiving a third request indicating at least the 3rd search parameter value represented by a 3rd text character of a search input as user enters more for searching);
retrieving at least one search result for the third search parameter value from the cache ([0022], [0024], [00071], [0099-0102], Fig 2 & 4A-5: retrieving at least one result for the 3rd search parameter value from the cache as the result is being loaded from the cache to a result page to be display at a user device);
returning the at least one retrieved search result to the client ([0022], [0024], [0071], [0099-0102], Fig 2 & 4A-5: return the at least one retrieved result as the result page with the result subset is being displayed to the user).
Sachindran does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one third search parameter value corresponds to a parameter value range derived from a distance between the first search parameter value and the second search parameter value, the parameter value range including or excluding the first and second search parameter values, and the parameter value range extending beyond the first and second search parameter values.
However, these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive data materials that describe parameter value range that corresponds to the third search parameter value. These data materials are not functionally involved in the steps recited that would impact the outcome. All claimed steps (i.e. receiving, determining, d obtaining, retrieving and returning) would be performed the same regardless of whether the third search parameter value corresponds to a parameter value range derived from a distance or not, and regardless whether the parameter value range include or excluding the first and second search parameter values or not. Similarly, all claimed steps would be performed the same regardless of the parameter value range extending beyond the first and second search parameter values or not. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have any parameter value range correspond to the third search parameter value because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the system claimed, and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Also, Nahamoo discloses wherein the at least one third search parameter value corresponds to a parameter value range derived from a distance between the first search parameter value and the second search parameter value, the parameter value range including or excluding the first and second search parameter values, and the parameter value range extending beyond the first and second search parameter values ([0018], [0129], [0135]: a 3rd search parameter value corresponds to a parameter value range derived from a distance. The distance indicates similarity range between the 1st & 2nd parameter values, which either includes or excludes the 1st & 2nd search parameter values based on the similarity of the 1st, 2nd & 3rd parameter values with respect to a similarity threshold, and range extends beyond the 1st & 2nd search parameter values for at least more parameter values are being involved in the range).
Since both Sachindran and Nahamoo are from the same field of endeavor because both are directed to using a cache in a search process, which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine their teachings by incorporate distance determination for search parameters with respect to similarity processing of Nahamoo into Sachindran for handing search request as claimed. The motivation to combine is to facilitate quick and efficient determination of relevance information in query processing for the users (Sachindran, [0002]; Nahamoo, [0002]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Michelle Owyang whose telephone number is (571)270-1254. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-6pm EST.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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.
/MICHELLE N OWYANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168