DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2, 5-8 and 11-25 are pending in the Instant Application.
Claims 2, 5-8, 11, 22 and 24 are rejected (Final Rejection).
Claim 23 and 25 are objected to.
Claims 12-21 are allowed.
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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 January 2026 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2. 5, 6, 8, 11, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (“Singh”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0144264.
As per claim 2, Singh discloses a method comprising: generating a response to a query from information associated with a primary source ([0065] wherein a response to a query for “Hotel in Park City, Utah” is generated by a primary source (Yahoo! Search ™)); generating a first annotation and a second annotation from a domain distinct from the primary source ([0065] wherein Third-Party 1 (distinct from the primary source) has a rating 553 for search result 561, and either search result 562 or 563 may also have a rating from Third-Party 1) , the first annotation including a first snippet of text from a first resource associated with the domain and the second annotation including a second snippet of text from a second resource associated with the domain ([0065] wherein a first and second snippet of text provided by the second resource includes a rating, an image and a link as described in [0051]);
providing a search result for the query that includes the response, the first annotation and the second annotation; and causing the search result to be displayed ([0065] wherein a first and second annotation can be displayed), the search result including a first control identifying the domain and a second control identifying the domain, the first control displaying the first annotation and being selectable to navigate to the first resource and the second control displaying the second annotation and being selectable to display to the second resource ([Fig. 2d and [0051] wherein a third party annotation from ZAGAT includes the domain, “Zagat” as well as providing a link to the hotel as described in [0065]), the first resource being different from the second resource ([0065] wherein a website for the hotel is provided, which is different for each result).
As per claim 5, Singh discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the domain is associated with an icon and providing the search result includes providing the icon for display with the first annotation and the second annotation([0044] and [0051] wherein a first and second selectable controls are the web address that is selectable by the user to access the third party resource, wherein if the image icon is clicked, a pop-up window may appear to show the resource).
As per claim 6, Singh discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the domain is associated with a domain name and providing the search result includes providing the domain name for display with the first annotation and the second annotation ([0051] wherein the URL (including domain name) providing the annotations is displayed with the annotations).
As per claim 8, claim 8 is a program product that performs the method of claim 2 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 11, claim 11 is a program product that performs the method of claim 6 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 22, Singh discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: generating a third annotation including a summary, wherein causing the search result to be displayed further includes displaying the third annotation ([0051] wherein a brief description is the summary).
As per claim 24, claim 24 is a program product that performs the method of claim 22 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of SHENOY et al. (“Shenoy”), Untied States Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0097143.
As per claim 7, Singh discloses the method of claim 2, but does not disclose generating a third annotation from the domain; and ranking the third annotation with respect to the first annotation and the second annotation, wherein the search result provided does not include the third annotation based on a rank of the third annotation with respect to the first annotation and the second annotation. However, Shenoy teaches generating a third annotation from the domain; and ranking the third annotation with respect to the first annotation and the second annotation, wherein the search result provided does not include the third annotation based on a rank of the third annotation with respect to the first annotation and the second annotation ([0080] wherein multiple types of annotations (3+) exist and area ranked to determined which annotations are relevant enough, and where 2 can be relevant enough, but not a third, and therefore, not included with the search results).
Both Singh and Shenoy use third party annotations with search results. Singh ranks between annotation domains, but not explicitly from the same domain. One could include the ranking from the same domain as in Shenoy, with the annotations in Singh to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of providing annotations with URLS in Singh with the ranking of annotations in Shenoy in order to only provide the user with the most relevant information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 23 includes the limitations including, “wherein providing the search result comprises displaying the first annotation and the second annotation in a carousel interface” that are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior art on record. Thus, the claim is objected to. Claim 25 is substantially similar to claim 23 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning. .
Claims 12-21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The following limitations in claim 12 including, “receiving a query that identifies a category; generating a response to the query from information associated with a primary source… generating a first annotation for the response from a first source distinct from the primary source, the first annotation representing a first webpage where the first item is identified in a first list of two or more top-ranked items in the category, the first annotation including a title of the first webpage and a link to the first webpage; generating a second annotation for the response from a second source distinct from the primary source and the first source, the second annotation representing a second webpage where the second item is identified in a second list of top-ranked items in the category; and providing a search result for the query that includes the response, the first annotation, and the second annotation” are neither anticipated nor obvious over the prior art on record. Claim 19 is the program product that performs the method of claim 12 and is allowed for the same rationale and reasoning. Dependent claims 13-18, 20 and 21 are allowed at least based on their dependence on an allowed claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed November 25th 2025 with respect to claims 12-21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 12-21 has been withdrawn.
As per claims, 2-5-8, 11, 22 and 24, Applicant's arguments filed REMARKS have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Upon further review, it appears a different embodiment in the prior art discloses the claimed limitations by allowing the same domain to provide annotations to multiple results while the result display different links to different resources. See above. Therefore, claims 2-5-8, 11, 22 and 24 remain rejected as noted above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM -6:00 PM.
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.
/KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168