DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 01/30/2026 for application 18/968,884. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 11-13, 15-16 and 19-20 have been amended. Claim 10 has been canceled. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/01/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejections:
With respect to Applicant's argument, the independent claims, especially as clarified, are not directed to an abstract idea or a process that could be performed in the human mind, as alleged in the Office Action. More specifically, a human cannot practically perform, in his mind or on paper, "receiving text input via at least one graphical user interface, wherein the text input comprises query information of a user; generating output indicative of a book search intent of the user by a machine learning model based on inputting the query information into the machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is pre-trained to understand semantics of text; determining at least one book matching the book search intent; determining recommendation information associated with the at least one book at least based on the book search intent, wherein the recommendation information indicates at least one reason why the at least one book matches the book search intent; and displaying a response to the query information on the at least one graphical user interface, wherein the response comprises an indication of the at least one book and the recommendation information," as recited in amended claim 1 (emphasis added). Because these highlighted claim features cannot practically be performed in the human mind, at least these claim features do not recite a mental process.
In response to Applicant's argument, the Examiner disagrees and submits that claim 1 along with independent claims 15 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea and not significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The limitation of determining at least one book matching the book search intent covers mental process because it can be performed in the human mind. Specifically, a person can determine a book that matches a user's search intent by analyzing the request, evaluating relevant information, and selecting an appropriate book based on that evaluation. The limitation of determining recommendation information for associated with the at least one book at least based on the book search intent, wherein the recommendation information indicates at least one reason why the at least one book matches the book search intent” recites a mental process because it involves evaluating a book and deciding why it matches a given search intent can be performed mentally using observation, evaluation and judgment. The “wherein” limitation only describes the recommendation information indicates a reason why the book matches the book search intent and does not recite any other functionalities. Therefore, the limitation recites a mental process.
That is, other than reciting "at least one processing unit, “at least one memory coupled to the at least processing unit and storing instructions executable by the at least one processing unit”, “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to”, “a machine learning model", nothing in the claim elements precludes the mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements of " at least one processing unit, “at least one memory coupled to the at least processing unit and storing instructions executable by the at least one processing unit”, “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to”, “a machine learning model" to perform steps. These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (Concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “receiving text input via at least one graphical user interface, wherein the text input comprises query information of a user” is a recitation of an insignificant extra-solution, a pre-solution activity which is a step of obtaining information in a claimed method. As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. As evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, ... buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”.
The limitation of “ generating output indicative of a book search intent of the user by a machine learning model based on inputting the query information into the machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is pre-trained to understand semantics of text” and “displaying a response to the query information on the at least one graphical user interface, wherein the response comprises an indication of the at least one book and the recommendation information” is a recitation of an insignificant extra-solution, a pre-solution activity which is a step of obtaining information in a claimed method. As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. As evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, ... buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to Applicant's argument that even if it could be shown that the claims recite a mental process, a point that Applicant does not concede, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. More specifically, the claims are inextricably tied to a technique for improving accuracy of book searching.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner cites that the additional elements cited above alone or in combination does not reflect any improvement to the technology.
103 Rejections:
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 15 and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. After further search and a through examination of the present application, claims 1-9 and 11-20 remain rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 15 and 20 recite “inputting the query information into the machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is pre-trained to understand semantics of text and wherein the recommendation information indicates at least one reason why the at least one book matches the book search intent”. The present specification does not disclose “limitations inputting the query information into the machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is pre-trained to understand semantics of text and wherein the recommendation information indicates at least one reason why the at least one book matches the book search intent”. It is not clear to the examiner that where this limitation “the machine learning model is pre-trained to understand semantics of text and wherein the recommendation information indicates at least one reason why the at least one book matches the book search intent” is construed in the specification.
All other claims contain analogous subject matter or are dependent claims and are therefore likewise rejected.
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 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1-9 and 11-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea and not significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Claims 1, 15, 20:
At Step 1:
The claims are directed to a “method”, "an electronic device" and “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“determining at least one book matching the book search intent” covers a mental process because it can be performed in the human mind. Specifically, a person can determine a book that matches a user's search intent by analyzing the request, evaluating relevant information, and selecting an appropriate book based on that evaluation.
-“determining recommendation information for associated with the at least one book at least based on the book search intent, wherein the recommendation information indicates at least one reason why the at least one book matches the book search intent” recites a mental process because it involves evaluating a book and deciding why it matches a given search intent can be performed mentally using observation, evaluation and judgment. The “wherein” limitation only describes the recommendation information indicates a reason why the book matches the book search intent and does not recite any other functionalities. Therefore, the limitation recites a mental process.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“at least one processing unit, “at least one memory coupled to the at least processing unit and storing instructions executable by the at least one processing unit”, “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to”, “a machine learning model”, which are all a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application and/or is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP §2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
-“ receiving text input via at least one graphical user interface, wherein the text input comprises query information of a user”, is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as ‘obtaining information’. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“generating output indicative of a book search intent of the user by a machine learning model based on inputting the query information into the machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is pre-trained to understand semantics of text” and “displaying a response to the query information on the at least one graphical user interface, wherein the response comprises an indication of the at least one book and the recommendation information” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as ‘obtaining information’. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“ receiving text input via at least one graphical user interface, wherein the text input comprises query information of a user” is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, ... buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)"
-“ generating output indicative of a book search intent of the user by a machine learning model based on inputting the query information into the machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is pre-trained to understand semantics of text” and “displaying a response to the query information on the at least one graphical user interface, wherein the response comprises an indication of the at least one book and the recommendation information” is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, ... buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In regards with claims 2, 16, recite wherein determining the recommendation information at least based on the book search intent comprises: determining the recommendation information based on the book search intent and information associated with the at least one book, wherein the information associated with the at least one book comprises at least one of: content in the at least one book, user interaction information related to the at least one book, or historical interaction of the user with the at least one book. The limitation of wherein determining the recommendation information at least based on the book search intent comprises: determining the recommendation information based on the book search intent and information associated with the at least one book, wherein the information associated with the at least one book comprises at least one of: content in the at least one book, user interaction information related to the at least one book, or historical interaction of the user with the at least one book as drafted is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the process of mental process because human mind can determine recommendation information associated with a book that matches a user's search intent by analyzing the request by evaluation and judgment. The claim has not added any additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In regards with claims 3, 17, recite wherein a first book of the at least one book has a plurality of content carriers, and the method further comprises: determining, based on the book search intent, at least one content carrier for recommendation from the plurality of content carriers of the first book, and wherein the indication of the at least one book in the response comprises an indication of the at least one content carrier of the first book as drafted is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the process of mental process because human mind can determine content carrier for recommendation of the first book by analyzing the request by evaluation and judgment. The claim has not added any additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In regards with claims 4, 18, recite determining a recommended reading progress of the at least one book based on the book search intent and historical interaction of the user with the at least one book, and wherein the indication of the at least one book in the response comprises a positional indication of the recommended reading progress of the at least one book. The limitation of determining a recommended reading progress of the at least one book based on the book search intent and historical interaction of the user with the at least one book, and wherein the indication of the at least one book in the response comprises a positional indication of the recommended reading progress of the at least one book as drafted is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the process of mental process because human mind can determine a recommended reading progress by evaluation and judgment. The claim has not added any additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In regards with claims 5, 19, recite “wherein acquiring the query information of the user receiving the text input via the at least one graphical user interface comprises: in response to a chat window between the user and a digital assistant for book search being triggered, acquiring a chat message input by the user in the chat window, and wherein providing displaying the response to the query information to the user on the at least one graphical user interface comprises :presenting the response, in the chat window, as a reply message to the chat message” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as ‘obtaining information’. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, ... buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
In regards with claim 6, recites “wherein receiving the text input via the al least one graphical user interface comprises: acquiring post content posted by the user or reply content to the post content, the digital assistant being mentioned in the post content and the reply content, and wherein displaying the response to the query information on the at least one graphical user interface comprises: presenting the response as reply content to the post content or further reply content to the reply content” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as ‘obtaining information’. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, ... buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
In regards with claim 7, recites “wherein receiving the text input via the al least one graphical user interface comprises: acquiring a search keyword input by the user in a search input box of a search engine, and wherein displaying the response to the query information on the at least one graphical user interface comprises: presenting the response in a search result page along with search results, the search results being determined by the search engine based on the search keyword” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as ‘obtaining information’. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, ... buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
In regards with claim 8, recites “wherein in the search result page, the response further comprises an entry for triggering a chat window between the user and a digital assistant for book search” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as ‘obtaining information’. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, ... buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
.
In regards with claim 9, recites “teach determining a search result click-through rate corresponding to the search keyword, whether the search keyword corresponds to a fuzzy book search, or a character length of the search keyword, the fuzzy book search indicating that the search keyword is not matched with a keyword of a specific book or a specific book type; and determining to present the response in the search result page along with the search results based on at least one of: the search result click-through rate being below a click-through rate threshold, the search keyword corresponding to the fuzzy book search, or the character length of the search keyword exceeding a length threshold” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as ‘obtaining information’. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, ... buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
In regards with claim 11, recites wherein determining the at least one book matching the book search intent comprises: determining the at least one book using the machine learning model, based on the book search intent. The limitation of wherein determining the at least one book matching the book search intent comprises: determining the at least one book using the machine learning model, based on the book search intent as drafted is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the process of mental process because human mind can determine a book matching the search intent by evaluation and judgment. The claim has not added any additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In regards with claim 12, recites “wherein generating the output indicative the book search intent of the user is further based on historical interaction information in at least one round of historical interaction with the user” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as ‘obtaining information’. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, ... buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
In regards with claim 13, recites comprising: identifying a current book search intent from the query information; identifying at least one historical book search intent from the historical interaction information and determining the book search intent of the user based on the current book search intent and the at least one historical book search intent. The limitation of comprising: identifying a current book search intent from the query information; identifying at least one historical book search intent from the historical interaction information and determining the book search intent of the user based on the current book search intent and the at least one historical book search intent as drafted is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the process of mental process because human mind can determine the book search intent of the user based on the current book search intent and the at least one historical book search intent by evaluation and judgment. The claim has not added any additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In regards with claim 14, recites wherein determining the book search intent of the user based on the current book search intent and the at least one historical book search intent comprises: determining a degree of association between the at least one historical book search intent and the current book search intent; and in response to determining that the degree of association between one or more of the at least one historical book search intent and the current book search intent exceeds an association threshold, determining the book search intent of the user based on the current book search intent and the one or more of the at least one historical book search intent. The limitation of wherein determining the book search intent of the user based on the current book search intent and the at least one historical book search intent comprises: determining a degree of association between the at least one historical book search intent and the current book search intent; and in response to determining that the degree of association between one or more of the at least one historical book search intent and the current book search intent exceeds an association threshold, determining the book search intent of the user based on the current book search intent and the one or more of the at least one historical book search intent as drafted is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the process of mental process because human mind can determine the book search intent of the user based on the current book search intent and the at least one historical book search intent by evaluation and judgment. The claim has not added any additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 1-2, 11-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al (US 2025/0013700 A1) in view of Harkous et al (US 11847424 B1).
As per claim 1, Guan teaches a method for improving accuracy of book searching, comprising:
acquiring receiving text input via at least one graphical user interface, wherein the text input comprises query information of a user (see [0040], e.g., discloses wherein the user may input “eschatology” or “culture **” in the search box/interface, and the electronic device uses the input text as the target search content);
generating output indicative a book search intent of the user by a machine learning model based on inputting the query information into the machine learning model ([0043], e.g., discloses wherein inputs the target search content into the trained machine learning model, and through model calculation, can output that the target search content belongs to category search content or book search content); determining at least one book matching the book search intent ([0043], e.g., discloses wherein it is determined that the target search content is the book search content, and specifically the name of the successfully matched book);
determining recommendation information associated with the at least one book at least based on the book search intent, wherein the recommendation information indicates at least one reason why the at least one book matches the book search intent; and displaying a response to the query information on the at least one graphical user interface, wherein the response comprises an indication of the at least one book and the recommendation information ([0044], [0046]-[0064], e.g., discloses wherein a server searches the recognized category search content or book search content to determine a comprehensive search result corresponding to the target search content, a plurality of recommended book categories associated with the target search content, and book information about at least one book contained in each recommended book category, wherein the book information includes a book identifier and book interaction information and wherein the book interaction information includes a user's review of the book, the number of likes, a rating, the number of shares, etc, the server display the comprehensive search result, the plurality of recommended book categories and the corresponding book information to the user electronic device).
Guan does not explicitly teach wherein the machine learning model is pre-trained to understand semantics of text;
However, Harkous teaches wherein the machine learning model is pre-trained to understand semantics of text (col.5, lines 39-41, e.g., discloses wherein the pre-trained language model is updated in order to be able to generate semantic text representations of input structured data);
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Harkous with the teachings of Guan in order to efficiently enabling a machine learning model to determine second data indicating that the first natural language representation is a semantically accurate representation of the first data (Harkous).
As per claim 2, wherein determining the recommendation information at least based on the book search intent comprises: determining the recommendation information based on the book search intent and information associated with the at least one book, wherein the information associated with the at least one book comprises at least one of: content in the at least one book, user interaction information related to the at least one book, or historical interaction of the user with the at least one book (see para. [0071], e.g., book interaction behavior data of the user, Guan).
As per claim 11, wherein determining the at least one book matching the book search intent comprises: determining the at least one book using the machine learning model, based on the book search intent (see para. [0043], Guan).
As per claim 12, wherein generating the output indicative the book search intent of the user is further based on historical interaction information in at least one round of historical interaction with the user (see para. [0075]-[0076], Guan).
As per claim 13, further comprising: identifying a current book search intent from the query information; identifying at least one historical book search intent from the historical interaction information; and determining the book search intent of the user based on the current book search intent and the at least one historical book search intent (see para. [0071], Guan).
As per claim 14, wherein determining the book search intent of the user based on the current book search intent and the at least one historical book search intent comprises: determining a degree of association between the at least one historical book search intent and the current book search intent; and in response to determining that the degree of association between one or more of the at least one historical book search intent and the current book search intent exceeds an association threshold, determining the book search intent of the user based on the current book search intent and the one or more of the at least one historical book search intent (see para. [0076]-[0078], Guan).
Regarding claims 15, 20, claims 15, 20 are rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 2 above.
Claims 3-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al (US 2025/0013700 A1) in view of Harkous et al (US 11847424 B1) further in view of Knas et al (US 10902395 B1).
As per claim 3, Guan and Harkous do not explicitly teach wherein a first book of the at least one book has a plurality of content carriers, and the method further comprises: determining, based on the book search intent, at least one content carrier for recommendation from the plurality of content carriers of the first book, and wherein the indication of the at least one book in the response comprises an indication of the at least one content carrier of the first book.
However, Knas teaches wherein a first book of the at least one book has a plurality of content carriers, and the method further comprises: determining, based on the book search intent, at least one content carrier for recommendation from the plurality of content carriers of the first book, and wherein the indication of the at least one book in the response comprises an indication of the at least one content carrier of the first book (col.13, lines 45-52, e.g., retrieve a standard e-book file from the database based on the request and the e-book file may include multimedia components such as audio, video, and/or animated text,( i.e., content carrier)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Knas with the teachings of Guan and Harkous in order to enabling a system to receive a request to search for e-books in a search engine and select the e-book from the search results in efficiently manner (Knas).
As per claim 4, determining a recommended reading progress of the at least one book based on the book search intent and historical interaction of the user with the at least one book, and wherein the indication of the at least one book in the response comprises a positional indication of the recommended reading progress of the at least one book (see col.9, lines 46-59, Knas).
As per claim 5, wherein receiving the text input via the al least one graphical user interface comprises: in response to a chat window between the user and a digital assistant for book search being triggered, acquiring a chat message input by the user in the chat window, and wherein displaying the response to the query information on the at least one graphical user interface comprises: presenting the response, in the chat window, as a reply message to the chat message (see col.2, lines 55-65, col.5, lines 16-48, col.6, lines 39-45, Knas).
As per claim 6, wherein receiving the text input via the al least one graphical user interface comprises: acquiring post content posted by the user or reply content to the post content, the digital assistant being mentioned in the post content and the reply content, and wherein displaying the response to the query information on the at least one graphical user interface comprises: presenting the response as reply content to the post content or further reply content to the reply content (see col.2, lines 55-65, col.5, lines 16-48, col.6, lines 39-45, col.10, lines 35-57, Knas).
As per claim 7, wherein receiving the text input via the al least one graphical user interface comprises: acquiring a search keyword input by the user in a search input box of a search engine, and wherein displaying the response to the query information on the at least one graphical user interface comprises: presenting the response in a search result page along with search results, the search results being determined by the search engine based on the search keyword (see col.13, lines 20-26, Knas).
As per claim 8, wherein in the search result page, the response further comprises an entry for triggering a chat window between the user and a digital assistant for book search (see col.2, lines 55-65, col.5, lines 16-48, col.6, lines 39-45, col.10, lines 35-57, Knas).
Regarding claims 17-19, claims 17-19 are rejected for substantially the same reason as claims 3-5 above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guan et al (US 2025/0013700 A1) in view of Harkous et al (US 11847424 B1) in view of Knas et al (US 10902395 B1) further in view of Wang et al (US 2020/0410537 A1).
As per claim 9, Guan, Harkous and Knas do not explicitly teach determining a search result click-through rate corresponding to the search keyword, whether the search keyword corresponds to a fuzzy book search, or a character length of the search keyword, the fuzzy book search indicating that the search keyword is not matched with a keyword of a specific book or a specific book type; and determining to present the response in the search result page along with the search results based on at least one of: the search result click-through rate being below a click-through rate threshold, the search keyword corresponding to the fuzzy book search, or the character length of the search keyword exceeding a length threshold.
However, Wang teaches determining a search result click-through rate corresponding to the search keyword, whether the search keyword corresponds to a fuzzy book search, or a character length of the search keyword, the fuzzy book search indicating that the search keyword is not matched with a keyword of a specific book or a specific book type (see para. [0068]-[0069], e.g., the clickthrough rate of the existing keyword can be used as the clickthrough rate of any document in search results and sentences containing existing keyword w1 in D2 (document 2/book), D2 may be irrelevant to w1 and thus the clickthrough rate will be lower.); and determining to present the response in the search result page along with the search results based on at least one of: the search result click-through rate being below a click-through rate threshold, the search keyword corresponding to the fuzzy book search, or the character length of the search keyword exceeding a length threshold ([0069], e.g., the sentences containing existing keyword w1 in D2, D2 may be irrelevant to w1 and thus the clickthrough rate will be lower.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Wang with the teachings of Guan, Harkous and Knas in order to enabling a system for ranking the candidate keywords by a frequency with which each candidate keyword appears in a particular document of the plurality of documents and a frequency with which each candidate keyword appears across all of the plurality of documents in efficiently manner (Wang).
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any wav. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]].
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Huang et al discloses US 20160140136 A1 Search Recommendation Method and Apparatus.
Fryz et al discloses US 9098551 B1 Method and System for Ranking Content by Click Count and Other Web Popularity Signals.
HUANG discloses US 20250148027 A1 METHOD AND APPARATUS, DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM FOR PROCESSING BOOK INFORMATION.
Li et al discloses US 20240061887 A1 INFORMATION SEARCH METHOD AND APPARATUS, COMPUTER DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad A Sana whose telephone number is (571)270-1753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 5712724098. 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.
/Mohammad A Sana/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166