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 .
Claims 2-21 are pending in this application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2, 10, 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 19, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,342,626 in view of Mukherjee et al., US 8,412,699 (hereinafter Mukherjee).
Instant Application
U.S. 9,342,626
2, 10, 18. A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
receiving a current query associated with a computing device of a user, the current query being received via a user interface input device of the computing device;
identifying, based on an entity referenced in the current query, one or more candidate suggestions, one or more of the candidate query suggestions referencing a corresponding additional entity that is in addition to the entity and that is related to the entity;
1. A method, comprising:
identifying a current query of a user, wherein the current query is a partial query entered by the user;
identifying one or more past queries of the user, the past queries issued by the user prior to the current query;
identifying one or more past entity collections related to one or more of the identified past queries, the past entity collections being a first set of entity collections, wherein each of the entity collections includes a grouping of entities that are members of the entity collection and that share one or more aspects in common;
identifying one or more candidate query suggestions for the current query based at least in part on one or more characters of the current query;
identifying, for a given candidate query suggestion of the candidate query suggestions, one or more current entity collections related to the given candidate query suggestion, the current entity collections being a second set of the entity collections.
The instant applicant additionally recites “as part of a query session” “causing search results that are responsive to the current query to be rendered at the computing device, the search results being rendered via a user interface output device of the computing device” and “causing at least a given candidate suggestion, of the one or more candidate query suggestions, to be rendered at the computing device, the given candidate suggestion being rendered via the user interface output device of the computing device.” However, Mukherjee teaches “as part of a query session” (see Mukherjee, col. 6 line 65 – col. 7 line 11, receiving “queries in a session”) “causing search results that are responsive to the current query to be rendered at the computing device, the search results being rendered via a user interface output device of the computing device” (see Mukherjee, col. 2 lines 40-52, “causes the result to be displayed in the user interface 100”) and “causing at least a given candidate suggestion, of the one or more candidate query suggestions, to be rendered at the computing device, the given candidate suggestion being rendered via the user interface output device of the computing device” (see Mukherjee, col. 3 lines 5-15, “related search suggestions are provided in response to search queries”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to display or render relevant search results and search suggestions that are responsive to a user query during a given query session.
Claim 2, 10, 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 9, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,360,225 in view of Mukherjee et al., US 8,412,699 (hereinafter Mukherjee).
The instant applicant substantively recites the same claim limitations to US 10,360,225, as similarly discussed above, but additionally recites “as part of a query session” “causing search results that are responsive to the current query to be rendered at the computing device, the search results being rendered via a user interface output device of the computing device.” However, Mukherjee teaches “as part of a query session” (see Mukherjee, col. 6 line 65 – col. 7 line 11, receiving “queries in a session”) … “causing at least a given candidate suggestion, of the one or more candidate query suggestions, to be rendered at the computing device, the given candidate suggestion being rendered via the user interface output device of the computing device” (see Mukherjee, col. 3 lines 5-15, “related search suggestions are provided in response to search queries”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to display or render relevant search results that are responsive to a user query during a given query session.
Claim 2, 10, 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 9, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,853,307 in view of Mukherjee et al., US 8,412,699 (hereinafter Mukherjee).
The instant applicant substantively recites the same claim limitations to US 11,853,307, as similarly discussed above, but additionally recites “as part of a query session” “causing search results that are responsive to the current query to be rendered at the computing device, the search results being rendered via a user interface output device of the computing device.” However, Mukherjee teaches “as part of a query session” (see Mukherjee, col. 6 line 65 – col. 7 line 11, receiving “queries in a session”)…“causing at least a given candidate suggestion, of the one or more candidate query suggestions, to be rendered at the computing device, the given candidate suggestion being rendered via the user interface output device of the computing device” (see Mukherjee, col. 3 lines 5-15, “related search suggestions are provided in response to search queries”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to display or render relevant search results that are responsive to a user query during a given query session.
Claim 2, 10, 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 9, 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,216,669 in view of Mukherjee et al., US 8,412,699 (hereinafter Mukherjee).
The instant applicant substantively recites the same claim limitations to US 12,216,669 as similarly discussed above, but additionally recites “as part of a query session” “causing search results that are responsive to the current query to be rendered at the computing device, the search results being rendered via a user interface output device of the computing device.” However, Mukherjee teaches “as part of a query session” (see Mukherjee, col. 6 line 65 – col. 7 line 11, receiving “queries in a session”)…“causing at least a given candidate suggestion, of the one or more candidate query suggestions, to be rendered at the computing device, the given candidate suggestion being rendered via the user interface output device of the computing device” (see Mukherjee, col. 3 lines 5-15, “related search suggestions are provided in response to search queries”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to display or render relevant search results that are responsive to a user query during a given query session.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 10 recites “identifying, based on an entity referenced in the current query, one or more candidate suggestions, on rot more candidate query suggestions referencing a corresponding additional entity that is in addition to the entity and that is related to the entity.”
The limitation “identify, based on an entity referenced in the current query, one or more candidate suggestions, on rot more candidate query suggestions referencing a corresponding additional entity that is in addition to the entity and that is related to the entity”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but from the recitation of implementing it on generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example “identify” in the context of this claim encompasses a user evaluating a given query and determining additional query suggestions based on the evaluation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 10 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using at least one processor. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer device). The other additional elements “receive a current query associated with a computing device of a user, the current query being received via a user interface input device of the computing device” and “cause search results that are responsive to the current query to be rendered at the computing device, the search results being rendered via a user interface output device of the computing device” and “cause at least a given candidate query suggestion, of the one or more candidate query suggestions, to be rendered at the computing device, the given candidate suggestions being rendered via the user interface output device of the computing device” represent mere extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element of receiving a current query represent mere data gathering steps. The additional elements of cause search results and a given candidate suggestions to be rendered at a computing device represents output of results. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional limitations, “receive a current query associated with a computing device of a user, the current query being received via a user interface input device of the computing device” and “cause search results that are responsive to the current query to be rendered at the computing device, the search results being rendered via a user interface output device of the computing device” and “cause at least a given candidate query suggestion, of the one or more candidate query suggestions, to be rendered at the computing device, the given candidate suggestions being rendered via the user interface output device of the computing device”, represent insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering that amount to simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry and specified at a high level of generality. According to the courts, mere data gathering steps and output/display of results obtained do not provide additional steps that provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Claim 10, as a whole, is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements are not sufficient to overcome the essentially mental nature of these claims. Accordingly, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Independent Claim 2 and Claim 18 are similarly rejected.
Claims 3-9, 11-17 and 19-21 depend on claims 2, 10 and 18 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 3-9, 11-17 and 19-21 recite the same abstract idea practically being performed in the mind, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 3, 11, 19 recite the additional limitations “wherein the query session is an on-topic query session, wherein the entity referenced in the current query is related to a topic of the on-topic query session, and wherein the corresponding additional entity referenced in the given candidate query suggestion is also related to the topic of the on-topic query session”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The additional limitations merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception that does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claims merely associate the mental process with a particular data source or particular type of data. This limitation is merely an incidental or token additional to the claim that does not alter or affect the mental process steps performed. Claims 3, 11, 19 are ineligible.
Claims 4, 12, 20 recite the additional limitations “causing a given additional candidate suggestion, of the one or more candidate query suggestions, to be rendered at the computing device, the given additional candidate suggestion being rendered via the user interface output device of the computing device; wherein the corresponding additional entity referenced in the given additional candidate query suggestion is also related to the topic of the on-topic query session.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The limitations represent insignificant extra solution activity of output/display of results. According to the courts, output/display of results obtained do not provide additional steps that provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
Claims 5, 13 recite the additional limitation “wherein one or more of the candidate query suggestions referencing the corresponding additional entity are automatically generated based on relationship between the entity and the corresponding additional entity”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The additional elements represent a further mental process step of identifying relationships between and entities in order to determine query suggestions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 5, 13 recite an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claims 6, 14 recite the additional limitation “wherein one or more of the candidate query suggestions referencing the corresponding additional entity are automatically generated in response to receiving the current query”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The additional elements represent a further mental process step of determining suggestions based on a received current query. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 6, 14 recite an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claims 7, 15 recite the additional limitation “wherein one or more of the candidate query suggestions referencing the corresponding additional entity are automatically generated prior to receiving the current query”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The additional elements represent a further mental process step of determining suggestions based on evaluated data prior to receiving a current query. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 7, 15 recite an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claims 8, 16 recite the additional limitations “wherein the corresponding additional entities are stored in a database accessible by the computing device, and wherein the corresponding additional entities are obtained, from the database, in response to receiving the current query”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The additional limitations merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception that does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claims merely associate the mental process with a particular data source or particular type of data. This limitation is merely an incidental or token additional to the claim that does not alter or affect the mental process steps performed. Claims 8, 16 are ineligible.
Claims 9, 17 recite the additional limitation “wherein the given candidate suggestion that is rendered at the computing device is selected based on a relationship between the corresponding entity, referenced by the given candidate suggestion, and the search results that are rendered at the computing device”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The additional elements represent a further mental process step of determining suggestions based on evaluated relationship data and given search results. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 9, 17 recite an abstract idea and is ineligible.
Claim 21 recites the additional limitation “wherein one or more of the candidate query suggestions referencing the corresponding additional entity are automatically generated based on a relationship between the entity and the corresponding additional entity, and wherein one or more of the candidate query suggestions referencing the corresponding additional entity are automatically generated: in response to receiving the current query, or prior to receiving the current query”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The additional elements represent a further mental process step of determining suggestions based on evaluating the current query or based on data prior to receiving the query. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 21 recites an abstract idea and is ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal et al., US 2009/0313237 (hereinafter Agrawal) in view of Mukherjee et al., US 8,412,699 (hereinafter Mukherjee).
For claims 2, 10, 18, Agrawal teaches a method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
receiving a current query associated with a computing device of a user, the current query being received via a user interface input device of the computing device (see Agrawal, [0024], “receives user queries, i.e., search requests, from user device 210”);
identifying, based on an entity referenced in the current query, one or more candidate suggestions, one or more of the candidate query suggestions referencing a corresponding additional entity that is in addition to the entity and that is related to the entity (see Agrawal, [0039] – [0040], [0052], “user query includes an entity,” [0053] - [0055], analyze “entities associated with a document” to determine “association between the first and second entities” and “if a user submits a query for the first entity, a query suggestion can be returned that includes the second entity”);
causing search results that are responsive to the current query to be rendered at the computing device, the search results being rendered via a user interface output device of the computing device (see Agrawal, [0019], “wherein the user may submit a query, i.e. perform a search, and retrieve search results in response,” [0027] – [0028]); and
causing at least a given candidate suggestion, of the one or more candidate query suggestions, to be rendered at the computing device, the given candidate suggestion being rendered via the user interface output device of the computing device (see Agrawal, [0056], “only several of the top-ranked query suggestions are returned”).
Mukherjee teaches “as part of a query session: receiving a current query associated with a computing device of a user” (see Mukherjee, col. 6 line 65 – col. 7 line 11, receiving “queries in a session”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Agrawal with the teachings of Mukherjee to select relevant query suggestions based on previous queries in a one or more related query sessions (see Mukherjee, col. 9 lines 18-36).
For claims 3, 11, 19, the combination teaches wherein the query session is an on-topic query session, wherein the entity referenced in the current query is related to a topic of the on-topic query session, and wherein the corresponding additional entity referenced in the given candidate query suggestion is also related to the topic of the on-topic query session (see Mukherjee, col. 6 line 65 – col. 7 line 11, “session” consists of “a user submits queries that related to a shared topic” representing on-topic session; see Agrawal, [0040], [0042], [0049], [0051], “relationships include mappings from a first entity to a second entity of a different type such as, for example, a mapping from an author name to a topic”).
For claims 4, 12, 20, the combination teaches further comprising:
causing a given additional candidate suggestion, of the one or more candidate query suggestions, to be rendered at the computing device, the given additional candidate suggestion being rendered via the user interface output device of the computing device (see Agrawal, [0056], “top-ranked query suggestions are returned” includes rendering a given additional candidate suggestion),
wherein the corresponding additional entity referenced in the given additional candidate query suggestion is also related to the topic of the on-topic query session (see Mukherjee, col. 6 line 65 – col. 7 line 11, suggestion based on topic of query session).
For claims 5, 13, the combination teaches wherein one or more of the candidate query suggestions referencing the corresponding additional entity are automatically generated based on a relationship between the entity and the corresponding additional entity (see Agrawal, [0040], “In order to generate query suggestions” determine “relationship” between “additional entities” and “entities”).
For claims 6, 14, the combination teaches wherein one or more of the candidate query suggestions referencing the corresponding additional entity are automatically generated in response to receiving the current query (see Agrawal, [0018], query suggestions may be automatically provided “in response to receiving a query submitted by the user”).
For claims 7, 15, the combination teaches wherein one or more of the candidate query suggestions referencing the corresponding additional entity are automatically generated prior to receiving the current query (see Agrawal, [0020], records produced from “previous queries submitted,” [0039], [0051], where records include “indexes” that map relationship between queries and entities for determining query suggestions stored before current query is received).
For claims 8, 16, the combination teaches wherein the corresponding additional entities are stored in a database accessible by the computing device, and wherein the corresponding additional entities are obtained, from the database, in response to receiving the current query (see Agrawal, [0039], [0051], where “indexes” that map relationship entities represent stored database with additional entities).
For claims 9, 17, the combination teaches wherein the given candidate suggestion that is rendered at the computing device is selected based on a relationship between the corresponding entity, referenced by the given candidate suggestion, and the search results that are rendered at the computing device (see Agrawal, [0035], [0040], “Query suggestions include search terms which, if submitted as a query to search server 212, would return query results that are related in some way to results returned (or expected to be returned) in response to the query submitted by the user”).
For claim 21, the combination teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein one or more of the candidate query suggestions referencing the corresponding additional entity are automatically generated based on a relationship between the entity and the corresponding additional entity (see Agrawal, [0040], “In order to generate query suggestions” determine “relationship” between “additional entities” and “entities”), and wherein one or more of the candidate query suggestions referencing the corresponding additional entity are automatically generated: in response to receiving the current query, or prior to receiving the current query (see Agrawal, [0018], query suggestions may be automatically provided “in response to receiving a query submitted by the user,” [0020], records produced from “previous queries submitted,” [0039], [0051], where records include “indexes” that map relationship between queries and entities for determining query suggestions stored before current query is received).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peiris et al., US 2014/0244661. [0040].
Parikh US 2008/0077563.
Jian et al., US 2010/0211588.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENSEN HU whose telephone number is (571)270-3803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 PT.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/JENSEN HU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169