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.
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 “causing a subset of the plurality of the one or more candidate query suggestions to be rendered at the computing device, wherein the subset of the plurality of candidate query suggestions includes the at least one of the plurality of candidate query suggestions reference the corresponding additional entity, and wherein a quantity of particular candidate query suggestions included in the subset is determined based on the computing device at which the current query was provided, and wherein the subset of the plurality of candidate query suggestion is caused to be rendered via the user interface output device of the computing” 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, 5-10, 13-18, and 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 Lee et al., US 2012/0066195 (hereinafter Lee).
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, a plurality of candidate suggestions, at least one of the plurality of candidate query suggestions referencing a corresponding additional entity that is in addition to the entity and that is related to the entity (see Agrawal, [0035], [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” as part of a plurality of identified “query suggestions”);
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]).
Lee teaches “as part of a query session: receiving a current query associated with a computing device of a user” (see Lee, [0017], [0020], [0028], “the user session during which the query is issued”). 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 Lee to select relevant query suggestions based on previous queries in a one or more related query sessions (see Lee, [0028]).
The combination further teaches
causing a subset of the plurality of of the one or more candidate query suggestions to be rendered at the computing device, wherein the subset of the plurality of candidate query suggestions includes the at least one of the plurality of candidate query suggestions reference the corresponding additional entity, and wherein a quantity of particular candidate query suggestions included in the subset is determined based on the computing device at which the current query was provided, and wherein the subset of the plurality of candidate query suggestion is caused to be rendered via the user interface output device of the computing device (see Agrawal, [0048], determine “relationship” between extracted “entities” wherein a “second entity” represents reference to additional entity, [0056], “only several of the top-ranked query suggestions are returned”; see Lee, [0007], [0020], [0028], [0035], [0037] – [0040], [0059] – [0062], select at least one “subset of query-suggestion pairs” from “set of query-suggestion pairs” where subset contains data that has a relationship with query representing additional entity, and where “total number of query-suggestion pairs in the set” constructed during particular “user session” represents quantity of suggestions based on computing device).
For claims 5, 13, the combination teaches wherein the at least one of the plurality of 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 at least one of the plurality 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 the at least one of the plurality of 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 subset of the plurality of candidate query suggestions that are rendered at the computing device is selected based on a relationship between the corresponding entity, referenced by at least one of the plurality of candidate query suggestions, 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 at least one of the plurality of 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 at least one of the plurality of 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).
Claim(s) 3-4, 11-12, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal et al., US 2009/0313237 (hereinafter Agrawal) in view of Lee et al., US 2012/0066195 (hereinafter Lee) and further in view of Mukherjee et al., US 8,412,699 (hereinafter Mukherjee).
For claims 3, 11, 19, Mukherjee 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 at least one of the plurality of candidate query suggestions 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”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Agrawal and Lee with the teachings of Mukherjee to efficiently select relevant query suggestions related to shared topics in an associated query sessions (see Mukherjee, col. 6 line 65 – col. 7 line 11).
For claims 4, 12, 20, the combination teaches further comprising:
causing a given additional candidate suggestion, of the plurality 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 containing additional entity data based on topic of query session).
Response to Amendments & Arguments
Applicant’s filing of terminal disclaimer with respect to non-statutory double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The non-statutory double patenting rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to claims rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant generally argues the amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed in the corresponding rejection above, the amended portion and “causing a subset of the plurality of the one or more candidate query suggestions to be rendered at the computing device, wherein the subset of the plurality of candidate query suggestions includes the at least one of the plurality of candidate query suggestions reference the corresponding additional entity, and wherein a quantity of particular candidate query suggestions included in the subset is determined based on the computing device at which the current query was provided, and wherein the subset of the plurality of candidate query suggestion is caused to be rendered via the user interface output device of the computing” 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.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roulland et al., US 2009/0106224.
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
Prosecution Insights