DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 2-5 and 7-14 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/07/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forte et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20140006440 A1 (Hereinafter “Forte”) in view of Nelson et al., U.S. Pub No: US 6587121 B1 (Hereinafter “Nelson”).
Regarding claim 2, Forte discloses A method comprising:
at a computer system that is in communication with one or more input devices and one or more display devices (see fig.4):
after assigning the first set of applications to the first topic and the second set of applications to the second topic, detecting, via the one or more input devices, an input corresponding to a search request (see paragraph [0051-0052 0059], wherein receives a search request for an app. For example, the user may simply enter a key word search or provide a search phrase for an app that the user is looking for);
and in response to detecting the input corresponding to the search request: in accordance with a determination that the search request corresponds to the first topic, displaying, via the one or more display devices, representations of each application in the first set of applications (see paragraph [0021, 0048, 0059], wherein an app named "flight simulator" may include in its meta-data topics such as game, flying, plane, fighter-jet, and the like. As a result, if the user searches for a "flying" app, even though the "flight simulator" app is not an exact match to the word "flying", the "flight simulator" app may be returned in a search result due to the match of the topic "flying" to the search key word of "flying".);
and in accordance with a determination that the search request corresponds to the second topic, displaying, via the one or more display devices, representations of each application in the second set of applications, wherein the first set of applications is different from the second set of applications (see paragraph [0021, 0048, 0059], wherein an app named "flight simulator" may include in its meta-data topics such as game, flying, plane, fighter-jet, and the like. As a result, if the user searches for a "flying" app, even though the "flight simulator" app is not an exact match to the word "flying", the "flight simulator" app may be returned in a search result due to the match of the topic "flying" to the search key word of "flying". Therefore the topic search model and the contextual matching, it inherently perform this step. If a user inputs a query that the model matches to a second distinct topic (e.g. game), the system will find and provide search results set of apps assigned to the second topic “game”).
Forte teaches assigning one or more APPs one or more topics, the is process is might be done by taking each application and assign it to a topic. Examiner believe that although that Forte might be dealing with each application individually when assigning the one or more topic, still the result/conclusion of this process would read on the claim language. Therefore, multiple (first and second) set of application can be assigned to multiple (first and second) topics as claimed (see paragraph [0029, 0048-0052]). However, to clarify the record, the examiner is introducing a secondary reference “Nelson”.
Nelson teaches assigning a first set of applications to a first topic and a second set of applications to a second topic, wherein the first set of applications is different from the second set of applications, and wherein the first topic is different from the second topic (see fig. 5, wherein item 70 represent, for example, the first set of applications which is assigned to the topic “MS OFFICE 97 APPLICATION SET” and item 72 can represent the second set of the application which is assigned to the topic “INTERNET TOOLKIT”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Forte to include assigning a first set of applications to a first topic and a second set of applications to a second topic, as taught by Nelson, because this would help system displays partitioned groupings of help topics organized in a intuitively functional, positional manner such that a user will instinctively know where to find the desired help topic (Nelson; col.2 line 22-25).
Regarding claim 3, Forte in view of Nelson further disclose wherein the input includes a search request string and wherein the determination that the search request corresponds to the first topic includes a determination that the search request corresponds to the first set of one or more applications, a name of at least one application of the first set of applications includes at least a portion of the search request string (Forte, see paragraph [0021, 0046-0048, 0059], wherein an app named "flight simulator" may include in its meta-data topics such as game, flying, plane, fighter-jet, and the like. As a result, if the user searches for a "flying" app, even though the "flight simulator" app is not an exact match to the word "flying", the "flight simulator" app may be returned in a search result due to the match of the topic "flying" to the search key word of "flying". Paragraph [0049] wherein the topic model search algorithm may be applied to the context based search. For example, if the user searches for an app using a search phrase "flying games while listen to the radio", the context search may look for apps that match context information and include the word flying. However, using the topic model search algorithm the search may also include the "flight simulator" app even though there is not an exact match to the key word "flying" based upon the match in the topics).
Regarding claim 4, Forte in view of Nelson further disclose wherein the input includes a search request string and wherein the determination that the search request corresponds to the first topic does not include a determination that a name of at least one application of the first set of applications includes at least a portion of the search request string (Forte, see paragraph [0021, 0046-0048, 0051, 0059], wherein an app named "flight simulator" may include in its meta-data topics such as game, flying, plane, fighter-jet, and the like. As a result, if the user searches for a "flying" app, even though the "flight simulator" app is not an exact match to the word "flying", the "flight simulator" app may be returned in a search result due to the match of the topic "flying" to the search key word of "flying". Paragraph [0049] wherein the topic model search algorithm may be applied to the context based search. For example, if the user searches for an app using a search phrase "flying games while listen to the radio", the context search may look for apps that match context information and include the word flying. However, using the topic model search algorithm the search may also include the "flight simulator" app even though there is not an exact match to the key word "flying" based upon the match in the topics).
Regarding claim 5, Forte in view of Nelson further disclose wherein the computer system is a single device, and wherein the first set of applications and the second set of applications are installed on the single device that includes the one or more input devices and the one or more display devices (Forte, see fig.4. see also Nelson fig.1 and 5), the method further comprising: while displaying the representations of each application in the first set of applications, detecting, via the one or more input devices, an input corresponding to a representation of an application in the first set of applications (Forte, See paragraph [0055]);
and in response to detecting the input corresponding to the representation of the application in the first set of applications, displaying, via the one of more display devices, a user interface of the application in the first set of applications (Forte, See paragraph [0055]. See also Forte paragraph [0021, 0046-0048, 0051, 0059]).
Claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Forte in view of Nelson further disclose wherein the method is performed by a search service of the computer system, and wherein the first set of applications is assigned to the first topic based on content received by the search service from each application of the first set of applications (Forte, see paragraph [0029, 0048-0052], wherein apps can be categorized (indexed) using the meta-data to assign the one or more topics to the apps. The first or second topic can be game or flying as one example).
Regarding claim 13, Forte in view of Nelson further disclose assigning the first set of applications to a third topic, wherein the third topic is different from the first topic and the second topic (Forte, see paragraph [0029, 0048-0052], wherein apps can be categorized (indexed) using the meta-data to assign the one or more topics to the apps. The third can be spaceship as one example); and
in response to detecting the input corresponding to the search request and in accordance with a determination that the search request corresponds to the third topic, displaying, via the one or more display devices, representations of each application in the first set of applications (Forte, see paragraph [0021, 0048, 0059], wherein an app named "flight simulator" may include in its meta-data topics such as game, flying, plane, fighter-jet, and the like. As a result, if the user searches for a "flying" app, even though the "flight simulator" app is not an exact match to the word "flying", the "flight simulator" app may be returned in a search result due to the match of the topic "flying" to the search key word of "flying". Therefore the topic search model and the contextual matching, it inherently perform this step. If a user inputs a query that the model matches to a second distinct topic (e.g. spaceship), the system will find and provide search results set of apps assigned to the second topic “spaceship”).
Regarding claim 14, Forte in view of Nelson further disclose assigning a third set of applications to a third topic, wherein the third topic is different from the second topic, wherein the third topic includes the first topic, and wherein the third set of applications is different from the first set of application and the second set of applications (Forte, see paragraph [0029, 0048-0052], wherein apps can be categorized (indexed) using the meta-data to assign the one or more topics to the apps. The third can be spaceship as one example); and
in response to detecting the input corresponding to the search request and in accordance with a determination that the search request corresponds to the third topic: displaying, via the one or more display devices, representations of each application in the first set of applications; and displaying, via the one or more display devices, representations of each application in the third set of applications (Forte, see paragraph [0021, 0048, 0059], wherein an app named "flight simulator" may include in its meta-data topics such as game, flying, plane, fighter-jet, and the like. As a result, if the user searches for a "flying" app, even though the "flight simulator" app is not an exact match to the word "flying", the "flight simulator" app may be returned in a search result due to the match of the topic "flying" to the search key word of "flying". Therefore the topic search model and the contextual matching, it inherently perform this step. If a user inputs a query that the model matches to a second distinct topic (e.g. spaceship), the system will find and provide search results set of apps assigned to the second topic “spaceship”).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forte et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20140006440 A1 (Hereinafter “Forte”) in view of Nelson et al., U.S. Pub No: US 6587121 B1 (Hereinafter “Nelson”) and further in view of Carlisle et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20180349485 A1 (Hereinafter “Carlisle”).
Regarding claim 8, Forte in view of Nelson fail to explicitly discloses the limitation below.
Carlisle disclose wherein the computer system is a user device that includes the one or more input devices and the one or more display devices, and wherein the input is detected at the user device while displaying, via the one or more display devices, a search input field, and wherein the input corresponds to the search input field (See Carlisle paragraph [0097-0098]), wherein the user input a search terms and the system detects input and trigger the search ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Forte to include the missing limitation, as taught by Carlisle, because the system would improve search results and user experience (Carlisle; paragraphs [0004]).
Regarding claim 9, Forte in view of Nelson and Carlisle further disclose wherein the search input field is from an application different from the first set of applications and the second set of applications (See Carlisle paragraph [0127-0130])).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, has been considered. The 101 rejection has been withdrawn .
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been considered but now are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. Regarding claims 2, 10 and 11, although the examiner introduced a secondary reference, the examiner would like note that Forte discloses that applications can include topics in their metadata. Forte also describes that when a search is preformed, apps with matching topic metadata are returned.
(1) Applicant argues that The Office Action relies on Forte's "flight simulator" example. But that example is used to show application-level topic matching: an application may be returned because topic metadata associated with that application matches the search keyword "flying." The cited disclosure does not disclose a first set of applications assigned to a first topic, and it does not disclose a determination that a name of at least one application of that first set includes at least a portion of the search request string as cited in claim 3.
(1) Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Forte doe focus heavily on matching search keywords to topic metadata rather than strictly application title, which was introduced to solve the problem of rudimentary keyword searches failing to return relevant apps, see para. [0012-0013]. Forte expressly acknowledges and utilizes traditional name/title matching as part of it baseline search functionality.
(2) All the other argument/s regarding claims 4-5, 7, 12-14 are moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHER N ALGIBHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0718. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1264.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http:
//pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHER N ALGIBHAH/Primary Examiner , Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights