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
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending in this application.
Claim rejections 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Applicant's arguments on claim rejections 35 U.S.C. 103, filed 1/21/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully traverses applicant’s arguments and made this action Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that a human cannot perform the required searching "along an edge in the graph data" without materializing intermediate nodes, because such edge-indexed memory structures do not exist in the human mind (Remarks, page 9).
Examiner respectfully submits that searching "along an edge in the graph data" without materializing intermediate nodes encompasses a user mentally and with the aid of pen and paper traversing along an edge in the graph data to select a graph data. Therefore, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant argues that "searching… without materializing an intermediate node" provides a concrete technological solution to this performance problem. Thus, claim 1 integrates any alleged exception into a practical application (Remarks, pages 9-10).
Examiner respectfully submits that MPEP recites that:
“The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement.” (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), Emphasis added).
Examiner respectfully submits that the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner such as "searching… without materializing an intermediate node" provides a concrete technological solution to this performance problem. In addition, the claims do not provide sufficient details to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, the claims do not provide sufficient details for a person of ordinary skill in the art how to implement “determining a next search path… without materializing an intermediate node” neither “determining… whether the target node needs to be materialized…” In fact, it does not provide a definition what is “materializing”. Therefore, the examiner should not determine the claims improve technology.
Applicant argues that Claim 1 expressly recites "determining a next search path without materializing an intermediate node connected to the edge" is neither generic nor routine (Remarks, pages 10-11).
Examiner respectfully submits that Curtiss teaches this limitation in claim rejections 103 as below.
Applicant argues that Curtiss has not been shown to teach or suggest "determining a next search path based on an edge that is reached in the graph data without materializing an intermediate node connected to the edge," as recited in amended claim 1 (Remarks, pages 12-13).
Examiner respectfully submits that Curtiss discloses: “At step 1240, the social-networking system 20 may generate search results comprising references to each target node that is connected to the first user node 302 in the social graph 300 by a series of selected nodes and selected edges 306 that have a visibility that is visible to the first user.” ([0133])
Examiner interprets that “materialization” in a DBMS is a process of computing the results of a database query and physically storing them as a table. Examiner interprets that selecting a next path based on a series of edges which are visible to a user means for determining a next search path based on evaluating visibility of intermediate nodes and edges within the social graph. It does not query or search a next search path in a table neither store intermediate nodes in a table. Therefore, Curtiss teaches determining a next search path based on an edge that is reached in the graph data without materializing an intermediate node connected to the edge.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 20:
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites “A method”. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore is a process.
Claim 19 recites “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions” and therefore is a manufacture.
Claim 20 recites “A computer-implemented system”. The claim recites the system comprising one or more computers and one or more computer memory devices and therefore is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the limitations “determining”, “searching”, “determining” and “returning” which specifically recite “determining a search start node in the graph data;” “searching, starting from the search start node and along an edge in the graph data, the graph data for a target node that meets the query request, wherein searching, starting from the search start node and along an edge in the graph data, the graph data for a target node that meets the query request, comprises: searching, starting from the search start node, the graph data along the edge in the graph data; and determining a next search path based on an edge that is reached in the graph data without materializing an intermediate node connected to the edge, wherein the intermediate node is not the target node;” “determining, based on query data that needs to be returned in response to the query request, whether the target node needs to be materialized;” and “in response to a determination that the query request that the target node does not need to be materialized, returning corresponding query data.” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other reciting a “non-transitory, computer-readable medium”, one or more “computers”, one or more “computer memory devices” and a “tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, determining”, “searching”, “determining” and “returning” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper determining a search start node in a graph data, traversing from the search start node and along an edge in the graph data to select a graph data for a target node that meets a query request, determining a next search path based on an edge that is reached in the graph data without materializing an intermediate node connected to the edge, determining whether the target node needs to be materialized, and if target node does not need to be materialized then selecting corresponding query data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the additional element “receiving a query request for graph data;” The limitation amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using a “non-transitory, computer-readable medium”, one or more “computers”, one or more “computer memory devices” and a “tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional elements “in response to a determination that the target node does need to be materialized: materializing the target node to obtain value information of the target node; and returning corresponding query data based on the value information of the target node” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional elements “for the query data that needs to be returned in response to the query request, determining, based on whether the query data depends on value information of the target node, whether the target node needs to be materialized, wherein, in response to a determination that the query data does not depend on the value information of the target node, a result of the determining is that the target node does not need to be materialized” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional elements “in response to a determination that the query data that needs to be returned in response to the query request is a quantity of target nodes, determining that the target node does not need to be materialized” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is dependent on the claim 5 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional element “obtaining an information simplification topology graph prebuilt based on the graph data, wherein the information simplification topology graph comprises an identifier of a node;” The limitation amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional elements “determining, based on the information simplification topology graph, an identifier of a peer node associated with the edge that is reached in the graph data; determining a query plan tree generated based on the query request; and determining the next search path based on the identifier of the peer node and the query plan tree” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is dependent on the claim 6 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional elements “the information simplification topology graph is partially consistent with an original topology graph represented by the graph data, wherein the information simplification topology graph is built based on a plurality of different graph data, and wherein the information simplification topology graph comprises a local area in each graph data; and determining the next search path based on the identifier of the peer node and the query plan tree, comprises: in response to a determination that the edge that is reached in the graph data is capable of being extended to the information simplification topology graph, determining the next search path in the local area in the information simplification topology graph” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is dependent on the claim 7 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional elements “determining whether a search path reaches a boundary of a local area in which the search path is located, wherein the local area belongs to another graph data; and in response to a determination that the search path reaches a boundary of a local area in which the search path is located, determining, based on a relationship between current graph data and the another graph data, whether to perform a graph jump” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is dependent on the claim 8 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “in response to a determination that the graph jump is to be performed, jumping from the local area to another area in the another graph data to continue to determine the next search path” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “in a process of determining target nodes, dynamically returning a real-time quantity of determined target nodes as corresponding query data.” The limitation amounts to monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is dependent on the claim 10 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “detecting a real-time page status of a front-end page corresponding to the query request.” The limitation amounts to monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 is dependent on the claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “determining whether the real-time page status meets a predetermined user concentration condition.” The limitation amounts to monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is dependent on the claim 12 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional elements “in response to a determination that the real-time page status meets a predetermined user concentration condition: materializing a target node that has returned corresponding query data; and performing, based on a result of the materialization, supplementing and returning in response to the query request.” The limitations amount to no more than mere instructions on a general purpose computer ((MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is dependent on the claim 13 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional elements “for the target node that has returned corresponding query data: pushing, to the front-end page, a corresponding roam trajectory that reflects an edge search; and prompting a user to select an intermediate node or a target node from the corresponding roam trajectory, so as to select at least a part of the intermediate node or the target node to materialize in a roam trajectory display process and a selection process of the user” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is dependent on the claim 14 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “in response to a determination that a selection operation of the user is received, supplementing and returning a corresponding materialization result.” The limitation amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “the search start node is specified in the query request” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 is dependent on the claim 16 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “the query request is used to request to search a quantity or value information of nodes that are specified hops away from the search start node, wherein the nodes that are specified hops away from the search start node are used as the target node” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 is dependent on the claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 18 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim also recites the additional element “a node in the graph data represents at least one of a user, a user feature, a service feature, or a transaction” which further elaborates on the abstract idea and therefore, does not amount to significant more. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtiss et al. (US 2014/0025702, hereinafter “Curtiss”) in view of Leopold (US 20140129493).
Regarding claim 1, Curtiss teaches A computer-implemented method for graph data query ([0133]: FIG. 12 illustrates an example method 1200 for filtering the search results for a structured search query based on privacy settings.), comprising:
receiving a query request for graph data; determining a search start node in the graph data ([0133] and Fig. 12: At step 1220, the social-networking system 20 may receive from the first user a structured query comprising references to one or more selected nodes from the one or more second nodes and one or more selected edges 306 from the plurality of edges 306.);
searching, starting from the search start node and along an edge in the graph data, the graph data for a target node that meets the query request ([0133] and Fig. 12: At step 1230, the social-networking system 20 may identify one or more target nodes corresponding to the structured query. Each target node may be a second node from the plurality of second nodes that is connected to at least one of the selected nodes by at least one of the selected edges 306.),
wherein searching, starting from the search start node and along an edge in the graph data, the graph data for a target node that meets the query request, comprises: searching, starting from the search start node, the graph data along the edge in the graph data; and determining a next search path based on an edge that is reached in the graph data without materializing an intermediate node connected to the edge, wherein the intermediate node is not the target node (Curtiss, [0128]: In particular embodiments, social-networking system 20 may generate search results comprising references to each target node that is connected to the first/querying user node 302 in the social graph 300 by a series of nodes and edges 306 that have a visibility that is visible to the first user. The nodes and edges in the path between the first user and the target node may comprise nodes and edges references in the selected structured query. [0133]: At step 1240, the social-networking system 20 may generate search results comprising references to each target node that is connected to the first user node 302 in the social graph 300 by a series of selected nodes and selected edges 306 that have a visibility that is visible to the first user.);
returning corresponding query data ([0133] and Fig. 12: At step 1240, the social-networking system 20 may generate search results comprising references to each target node that is connected to the first user node 302 in the social graph 300 by a series of selected nodes and selected edges 306 that have a visibility that is visible to the first user.).
Curtiss does not explicitly teach determining, based on query data that needs to be returned in response to the query request, whether the target node needs to be materialized; and in response to a determination that the target node does not need to be materialized, returning corresponding query data.
Leopold teaches determining, based on query data that needs to be returned in response to the query request, whether the target node needs to be materialized ([0064]: In response to the query (step 312), the method determines if a query node required for the query is stored in memory.); and in response to a determination that the target node does not need to be materialized, returning corresponding query data ([0064]: A query node retains histories of similar searches and the result indexes previously generated. If so, the method continues to step 316…In step 316, the indexes are used to identify and return a first result set containing document IDs ("container") from a primary query parsed from the query node.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structured query of Curtiss with the teaching about the query engine of Leopold because the query engine is able to measure user preference from how the user responded to previous query results, thus allowing the method to generate tailored query results in response to a query entered by user (Leopold, [0064]).
Regarding claim 2, Curtiss in view of Leopold teaches wherein, after determining whether the target node needs to be materialized: in response to a determination that the target node does need to be materialized: materializing the target node to obtain value information of the target node; and returning corresponding query data based on the value information of the target node (Leopold, [0064]: In response to the query (step 312), the method determines if a query node required for the query is stored in memory. A query node retains histories of similar searches and the result indexes previously generated…If not, the method searches the knowledgebase for related documents in an index, or search-engine index, and generates a novel query node (step 314). In step 316, the indexes are used to identify and return a first result set containing document IDs ("container") from a primary query parsed from the query node.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structured query of Curtiss with the teaching about the query engine of Leopold because the query engine is able to measure user preference from how the user responded to previous query results, thus allowing the method to generate tailored query results in response to a query entered by user (Leopold, [0064]).
Regarding claim 3, Curtiss in view of Leopold teaches wherein determining, based on query data that needs to be returned in response to the query request, whether the target node needs to be materialized, comprises: for the query data that needs to be returned in response to the query request, determining, based on whether the query data depends on value information of the target node, whether the target node needs to be materialized, wherein, in response to a determination that the query data does not depend on the value information of the target node, a result of the determining is that the target node does not need to be materialized (Leopold, [0064]: In response to the query (step 312), the method determines if a query node required for the query is stored in memory. A query node retains histories of similar searches and the result indexes previously generated. If so, the method continues to step 316. If not, the method searches the knowledgebase for related documents in an index, or search-engine index, and generates a novel query node (step 314). In step 316, the indexes are used to identify and return a first result set containing document IDs ("container") from a primary query parsed from the query node.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structured query of Curtiss with the teaching about the query engine of Leopold because the query engine is able to measure user preference from how the user responded to previous query results, thus allowing the method to generate tailored query results in response to a query entered by user (Leopold, [0064]).
Regarding claim 4, Curtiss in view of Leopold teaches wherein determining, based on query data that needs to be returned in response to the query request, whether the target node needs to be materialized comprises: in response to a determination that the query data that needs to be returned in response to the query request is a quantity of target nodes, determining that the target node does not need to be materialized (Curtiss, [0102]: After the first user selects a particular structured query, the social-networking system 20 may process the query to identify target nodes corresponding to the query. These target nodes may then be filtered based on privacy settings associated with the nodes (via, for example, a server-side privacy-filter process), and the filtered results may then be transmitted to the first user as search results. [0127]: In particular embodiments, social-networking system 20 may identify one or more target nodes corresponding to the structured query.).
Regarding claim 16, Curtiss in view of Leopold teaches the search start node is specified in the query request (Curtiss, [0133] and Fig. 12: At step 1220, the social-networking system 20 may receive from the first user a structured query comprising references to one or more selected nodes from the one or more second nodes and one or more selected edges 306 from the plurality of edges 306.);
Regarding claim 17, Curtiss in view of Leopold teaches the query request is used to request to search a quantity or value information of nodes that are specified hops away from the search start node, wherein the nodes that are specified hops away from the search start node are used as the target node (Curtiss, [0128]: The nodes and edges in the path between the first user and the target node may comprise nodes and edges references in the selected structured query.).
Regarding claim 18, Curtiss in view of Leopold teaches wherein a node in the graph data represents at least one of a user, a user feature, a service feature, or a transaction (Curtiss, [0039] and Fig. 3: In the example of FIG. 3, social graph 300 includes an edge 306 indicating a friend relation between the user nodes 302 of user "A" and user "B," and an edge indicating a friend relation between the user nodes 302 of user "C" and user "B.").
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. Curtiss also teaches A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform one or more operations for graph data query ([0144]: discussing about a computer-readable storage medium implements one or more portions of processor 1302 (such as, for example, one or more internal registers or caches), one or more portions of memory 1304, one or more portions of storage 1306, or a combination of these, where appropriate; [0133]: FIG. 12 illustrates an example method 1200 for filtering the search results for a structured search query based on privacy settings.).
Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. Curtiss also teaches A computer-implemented system for graph data query, comprising: one or more computers; and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform one or more operations ([0133]: FIG. 12 illustrates an example method 1200 for filtering the search results for a structured search query based on privacy settings. [0137]: In particular embodiments, processor 1302 includes hardware for executing instructions, such as those making up a computer program. As an example and not by way of limitation, to execute instructions, processor 1302 may retrieve (or fetch) the instructions from an internal register, an internal cache, memory 1304, or storage 1306; decode and execute them; and then write one or more results to an internal register, an internal cache, memory 1304, or storage 1306.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtiss in view of Leopold and further in view of Woodward (US 2014/0282364).
Regarding claim 10, Curtiss in view of Leopold teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Curtiss in view of Leopold does not explicitly teach wherein returning corresponding query data, comprises: in a process of determining target nodes, dynamically returning a real-time quantity of determined target nodes as corresponding query data.
Woodward teaches wherein returning corresponding query data, comprises: in a process of determining target nodes, dynamically returning a real-time quantity of determined target nodes as corresponding query data ([0020]: Another benefit is that search results (i.e., the displayed list of active links to nodes identified by the search engine) can be generated in real time. [0034]: In accordance with one embodiment of the present invention, search engine 206 can perform a live search on the node associated data. As the user enter search terms, search results in the form of links to nodes are displayed in real time.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structured query of Curtiss and Leopold with the teaching about the number of nodes visited of Woodward because it may dramatically reduce the time and effort needed to build new or modify existing online charging systems (Woodward, [0020]).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtiss in view of Leopold, in view of Woodward and further in view of Han et al. (US 2014/0012840, hereinafter “Han”).
Regarding claim 11, Curtiss in view of Leopold and Woodward teaches the method of claim 10 as discussed above. Curtiss in view of Leopold and Woodward does not explicitly teach detecting a real-time page status of a front-end page corresponding to the query request.
Han teaches detecting a real-time page status of a front-end page corresponding to the query request ([0059]: When a new search query (i.e., a search query for which characteristic information has not been previously determined) is received, calculations are performed in real-time on the relationship between the sets of web page information that are included in the search results and the search keywords included in the search query and the previously generated click probabilities are retrieved for the new search query with respect to the sets of web page information. In some embodiments, the sets of web page information may be ranked based on their respective predicted click rate probabilities for the characteristic information of the current search query. [0062]: At 316, the set of web page information of the group of sets of web page is updated using the main product attribute. Optionally, in some embodiments, the sets of web page information associated with a group for which a main product attribute has been determined may be updated with the determined main product attribute.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structured query of Curtiss, Leopold and Woodward with the teaching about generating search results of Han because automatic updating of the sets of web page information may help vendors who have forgotten to update information that they have previously submitted (Han, [0062]).
Regarding claim 12, Curtiss in view of Leopold, Woodward and Han teaches determining whether the real-time page status meets a predetermined user concentration condition (Han, [0059]: When a new search query (i.e., a search query for which characteristic information has not been previously determined) is received, calculations are performed in real-time on the relationship between the sets of web page information that are included in the search results and the search keywords included in the search query and the previously generated click probabilities are retrieved for the new search query with respect to the sets of web page information. In some embodiments, the sets of web page information may be ranked based on their respective predicted click rate probabilities for the characteristic information of the current search query.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structured query of Curtiss, Leopold and Woodward with the teaching about generating search results of Han because automatic updating of the sets of web page information may help vendors who have forgotten to update information that they have previously submitted (Han, [0062]).
Regarding claim 13, Curtiss in view of Leopold, Woodward and Han teaches in response to a determination that the real-time page status meets a predetermined user concentration condition: materializing a target node that has returned corresponding query data; and performing, based on a result of the materialization, supplementing and returning in response to the query request (Han, [0059]: The search results may be ranked based on any appropriate technique. One example ranking technique is described as follows: One or more characteristics of the search query are determined. For example, is characteristics may include location information associated with a client device from which the search query was received. Also, a click probability forecasting model is determined. The click probability forecasting model comprises predicted click rate probabilities corresponding to the sets of web page information and for different characteristic information associated with search queries. For example, the predicted click rate probabilities may be based on historical information such as recorded search keywords from historical searches, previously displayed search results and their respective positions on the search results page, and the sets of web page information that have been selected by the user among historical search results.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structured query of Curtiss, Leopold and Woodward with the teaching about generating search results of Han because automatic updating of the sets of web page information may help vendors who have forgotten to update information that they have previously submitted (Han, [0062]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As per claim 6, the prior arts of made record fail to teach obtaining an information simplification topology graph prebuilt based on the graph data, wherein the information simplification topology graph comprises an identifier of a node; determining, based on the information simplification topology graph, an identifier of a peer node associated with the edge that is reached in the graph data; determining a query plan tree generated based on the query request; and determining the next search path based on the identifier of the peer node and the query plan tree.
As per claim 14, the prior arts of made record fail to teach for the target node that has returned corresponding query data: pushing, to the front-end page, a corresponding roam trajectory that reflects an edge search; and prompting a user to select an intermediate node or a target node from the corresponding roam trajectory, so as to select at least a part of the intermediate node or the target node to materialize in a roam trajectory display process and a selection process of the user.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dovrath et al. (US 2009/0112680) discloses that users and potential users may be notified of current offerings by way of advertisements, which may be updated in real time to reflect the current offering and displayed in relevant pages of the website itself (such as relevant search result pages) or on other websites, such as gossip sites, entertainment magazines, fan-club websites and other celebrity-related websites ([0105]).
Young-Lai (US 2004/0030677) discloses that number of nodes visited is also directly proportional to the real time taken by the search, assuming that the "PRUNE" function takes constant time.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm 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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156
March 12, 2026