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.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 1 recites “wherein the determination that the search request corresponds to the first topic does not include a determination that a determination that a name …” and it should be “wherein the determination that the search request corresponds to the first topic does not include a determination that .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-5, 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Independent claim 2 recites a method, independent claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, independent claim 11 recites a system. Therefore, step 1 is satisfied for claims 2-14.
Step 2A Prong One:
The claim(s) recite(s) mental process steps of:
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; (this step recite abstract mental processes that can be performed by the human mind or practicably with pen and paper. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The concept of assigning a first set of applications to a first topic and a second set of applications to a second topic is a mental process (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) that is applied and performed in a computing environment—i.e., an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I]); see also Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[A]nalyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”’). ).
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; 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 (this step recite abstract mental processes that can be performed by the human mind or practicably with pen and paper. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The concept of determination that the search request corresponds to a first/second set of applications is a mental process (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) that is applied and performed in a computing environment—i.e., an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I]); see also Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[A]nalyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”’). ).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The claim/s recites the combination of the additional elements, the additional elements in the claim are:
at a computer system that is in communication with one or more input devices and one or more display devices: (in claim 2 and 10-11)
detecting, via the one or more input devices, an input corresponding to a search request; (in claim 2 and 10-11)
one or more processors; and memory (in claim 11)
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining additional elements amount to nothing more than generic components recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(f).
Step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s). These cannot provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are patent-ineligible.
Claims 3-5, 7-14 directed to the same abstract idea without significantly more. The claims either recite an additional insignificant extra-solution activity OR recite an additional mental process to evaluate and judge using pen and paper. There are no additional elements recited in these claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are rejected under the same abstract idea as claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forte et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20140006440 A1 (Hereinafter “Forte”).
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):
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 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.);
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”).
Regarding claim 3, Forte discloses 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 (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 discloses 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 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 (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 discloses 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 (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 (See paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 7, Forte discloses wherein the determination that the search request corresponds to the first topic includes a determination that the search request corresponds to metadata associated with the first topic (see paragraph [0039, 0050-0052]).
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 discloses wherein the first set of applications is assigned to the first topic based on content donated by the first set of applications (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 discloses assigning the first set of applications to a third topic, wherein the third topic is different from the first topic and the second topic (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 (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 discloses 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 (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 (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”).
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 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 Carlisle et al., U.S. Pub No: US 20180349485 A1 (Hereinafter “Carlisle”).
Regarding claim 8, Forte fails to explicitly discloses the limitation below.
Carlisle disclose wherein the input is detected 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 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])).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/07/2018 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, has been considered. The 101 rejection has been maintained.
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.
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.
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