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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/30/2026 has been entered.
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) 2-4 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nudelman, Choosing the right search results page layout: Make the most of your width, 2014 in view of Venkataraman US 20060101503 A1 and further in view of Hansson WO 2012/024580 A1.
Claim 2
Nudelman, Choosing the right search results page layout: Make the most of your width, 2014.
Analysis
receiving a search query comprising alphanumeric characters;
Fig. 2 page 3 (google query “usability” includes alphanumeric characters)
identifying search results for the search query, wherein the search results comprise media content determined to be relevant to the search query;
Fig. 2 page 3 (google search results includes media content (web pages, for example) relevant to the search query;
determining a first electronic device for presenting the search results;
On p. 2 under Using Liquid Layout:
“In a liquid layout the width of the search results on a Web page shrinks or expands to fille the available space as the a user changes the screen resolution or the width of the browser”
Examiner finds liquid layout can detect a screen resolution and thus can determine a first electronic display device for presenting the search results.
determining device characteristics of the first electronic device; and
On p. 2 under Using Liquid Layout:
“In a liquid layout the width of the search results on a Web page shrinks or expands to fille the available space as the a user changes the screen resolution or the width of the browser”
Examiner finds screen resolution is a device characteristic of an electronic device (e.g. a monitor).
Nudelman further teaches “generating for display on the first electronic device a first cluster of search results” p. 2 (“. . the width of the search results on a Web page shrinks and expands to fill the available space as the user changes the screen resolution or the width of the browser window. . . “); p. 3 screenshots.
Examiner finds a cluster broadly includes “group of media items in which each
media item of the group shares a common trait.” Applicant’s specification at para. 27. Google search results are clusters because they share a common trait—i.e. they are relevant to the user’s query. Search results teach media content because web pages are media content.
It appears Nudelman fails to explicitly teach “generating for display on the first electronic device a first cluster of search results, wherein number of search results included in the first cluster of search results is determined based on the device characteristics.”
However, Venkataraman US 20060101503 A1 teaches “generating for display on the first electronic device a first cluster of search results, wherein number of search results included in the first cluster of search results is determined based on the device characteristics” in
[0007] It would be desirable for search engines for devices (with limited input capabilities in particular) to enable user to get to desired results with reduced input representing a namespace. In particular, a search method or system able to perform one or more of the following would be desirable: [0008] (1) Captures information from one or more words making up a name, using a reduced number of characters to represent the original name. The number of results matched for the name entry is preferably limited to a given threshold, which can, e.g., be determined by the display space for rendering the results and the ease of scrolling through the results. [0009] (2) Allows users to enter words in the namespace in any order. For example, a person lookup search such as "John Doe" should be possible either as "John Doe or Doe John." In this example, "John" and "Doe" is a two-word instance of a name from an unordered namespace. [0010] (3) Facilitates learning of an efficient usage of the reduced text entry scheme intuitively and gradually. First time users should preferably be able to even enter the full string if they choose to. The system preferably provides users with cues and assistance to help learn to key in the reduced string to get to desired results. [0011] (4) Works across search domains with diverse attributes such as (a) size of the search domain (b) the language used for search, (c) the clustering characteristics of names in the search domain, (d) the interface capabilities of the device used for search, and (e) computational power, memory, and bandwidth availability of the search system.
[0046] The second device illustrated in FIG. 8B is a hand-held device (e.g., a phone) 812 that has a built-in keypad 816 and navigation interface 815. The display window 813 on this device is likely to be much smaller and hence hold fewer results in a results area 817. Scrolling may be cumbersome on these devices. Aggregation of words can be used wherever applicable to reduce bucket sizes and hence scrolling.
Figs. 8A and 8B (remote and mobile devices are the first and second device)
[0022] FIGS. 8A and 8B illustrate interface characteristics of two search devices in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention.
[0048] In accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention, entity and term space complexity is considered in designing a search/disambiguating mechanism and operations, in addition to device characteristics themselves
(display window is device characteristic).
Venkataraman and Nudelman are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify generating for display on the first electronic device a first cluster of search results in Nudelman to in include generating for display on the first electronic device a first cluster of search results, wherein number of search results included in the first cluster of search results is determined based on the device characteristics.”
The motivation would have been to allow “search engines for devices (with limited input capabilities in particular) to enable user to get to desired results with reduced input representing a namespace.” See Venkataraman para. 7.
It appears Nudelman et al. fails to explicitly teach “as each alphanumeric character of the search query is received in sequential order” and “based on each alphanumeric character of the search query.”
However, Hansson WO 2012/024580 Al teaches “as each alphanumeric character of the search query is received in sequential order” and “based on each alphanumeric character of the search query” on p. 21 lines 10-25, p. 22 lines 13-23; p. 22 lines 30-p. 23 line 8; and Figs. 5A-5E (“It” (5B, 504, 510a) “Ita” and “Ith” (5C, 504) are all received in sequential order; cluster search results (e.g. Fig. 5B search results 514a-c and/or 512a, 508a) is based on each alphanumeric character of the search query). See also Fig. 1 items 120-1, 102-2, 102-3, and 102-4.
Hansson and Nudelman et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
It would have ben obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify generating for display on the first electronic device a first cluster of search results” as taught by Nudelman et al. to include “wherein as each alphanumeric character of the search query is received in sequential order” and to modify the “a number of search results included in the first cluster of search results is determined based on the device characteristics” in Nudelman et al. to include “based on each alphanumeric character of the search query” as taught by Hansson.
The motivation would have been the following:
In the absences of a user selection of a search query suggestion or sending a search request for a completed query, search results are shown only if a prediction criterion is met. This selective display of search results realizes a user experience that does not overwhelm the user with different search results being displayed with each keystroke. The selective display of search results reduces the likelihood of "search result" blindness that may occur if search results are displayed without any predictive criterion, and also reduces the likelihood of inadvertent "topic drift" that may otherwise occur in the presence of different search results being displayed with each keystroke.
Hansson page 2 lines 26-page 3 line 2.
3. (New) The method of claim 2, wherein the search query is received from a second electronic device that is different from the first electronic device.
Venkataraman
Figs. 8A and 8B (TV and mobile device are the first and second device)
[0007] It would be desirable for search engines for devices (with limited input capabilities in particular) to enable user to get to desired results with reduced input representing a namespace. In particular, a search method or system able to perform one or more of the following would be desirable: [0008] (1) Captures information from one or more words making up a name, using a reduced number of characters to represent the original name. The number of results matched for the name entry is preferably limited to a given threshold, which can, e.g., be determined by the display space for rendering the results and the ease of scrolling through the results. [0009] (2) Allows users to enter words in the namespace in any order. For example, a person lookup search such as "John Doe" should be possible either as "John Doe or Doe John." In this example, "John" and "Doe" is a two-word instance of a name from an unordered namespace. [0010] (3) Facilitates learning of an efficient usage of the reduced text entry scheme intuitively and gradually. First time users should preferably be able to even enter the full string if they choose to. The system preferably provides users with cues and assistance to help learn to key in the reduced string to get to desired results. [0011] (4) Works across search domains with diverse attributes such as (a) size of the search domain (b) the language used for search, (c) the clustering characteristics of names in the search domain, (d) the interface capabilities of the device used for search, and (e) computational power, memory, and bandwidth availability of the search system.
[0046] The second device illustrated in FIG. 8B is a hand-held device (e.g., a phone) 812 that has a built-in keypad 816 and navigation interface 815. The display window 813 on this device is likely to be much smaller and hence hold fewer results in a results area 817. Scrolling may be cumbersome on these devices. Aggregation of words can be used wherever applicable to reduce bucket sizes and hence scrolling.
)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the search query in Nudelman to include “wherein the search query is received from a second electronic device that is different from the first electronic device.” The motivation would have been to allow “search engines for devices (with limited input capabilities in particular) to enable user to get to desired results with reduced input representing a namespace.” See Venkataraman para. 7.
4. (New) The method of claim 2, wherein the device characteristics comprise at least one of a device screen size and a device type.
Venkataraman
Figs. 8A and 8B (remote and mobile devices are the first and second device);
[0046] The second device illustrated in FIG. 8B is a hand-held device (e.g., a phone) 812 that has a built-in keypad 816 and navigation interface 815. The display window 813 on this device is likely to be much smaller and hence hold fewer results in a results area 817. Scrolling may be cumbersome on these devices. Aggregation of words can be used wherever applicable to reduce bucket sizes and hence scrolling.
[0022] FIGS. 8A and 8B illustrate interface characteristics of two search devices in accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention.
[0048] In accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention, entity and term space complexity is considered in designing a search/disambiguating mechanism and operations, in addition to device characteristics themselves
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device characteristics in Nudelman to include “at least one of a device screen size and a device type.” The motivation would have been to allow “search engines for devices (with limited input capabilities in particular) to enable user to get to desired results with reduced input representing a namespace.” See Venkataraman para. 7.
Claims 12-14 are rejected for the same reasons above for claims 2-4, respectively.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nudelman in view of Venkataraman and further in view of Hansson as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Ramer US 20070061363 A1
Nudelman teaches graphical displays of search results on page 3. It appears Nudelman et al. fails to explicitly teach a “graphic associated with the search results.” However, Ramer teaches “graphic associated with the search result” in Figs. 9-10. Fig. 9 items 908, 912, 914, and 920and Fig. 10 items 1002 and 1008, and all include graphics associated with search results.
Ramer and Nudelman et al. are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display in Nudelman et al. to include “generating for display a graphic associated with the search results” as taught by Ramer.
The motivation would have been to improve a user’s search experience on mobile by presenting results in an fast, easy to read, convenient format. See Ramer paras. 4, 128, and 174.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason above.
Claim(s) 11 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nudelman in view of Venkataraman and further in view of Hansson as applied to claim 2 and 12 above and further in view of Ramer as applied to claim 10 and claim 20 above and further in view of Angermayer (US 2016/0170578).
11. (New) The method of claim 10, wherein the graphic associated with the search results comprises an interactive [GUI] comprising the media content determined to be relevant to the search query,
Ramer Figs. 9 and 10
Figs. 9-10 teach a user interacting with a GUI. See search query 120, for example. Search results relevant to the query include 912, 920, 914, 1002, for example.
and wherein the size of the interactive [GUI] is based on the device characteristics.
Paras. 78, 92, 287, 518, and 519.
Interactive GUI size changed based on screen size of mobile device, for example (device characteristics).
It appears Ramer fails to explicitly teach the GUI is a dial. However, Angermayer (US 2016/0170578) teaches a "dial" in the abstract and Fig. 1A. Ramer et al. and Angermayer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the interactive GUI element in Ramer to include a "dial" as taught by Angermayer. The motivation would have been to make interactions with a touch device easier for users who find it difficult to use gestures. See Angermayer ¶ 0002.
Claim 21 is rejected for the same reason.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nudelman in view of Venkataraman and further in view of Hansson as applied to claim 2 and 12 above and further in view of Lee US 20140022157 A1
With respect to claim 5, Nudelman et al. fails to explicitly teach, but Lee teaches 5. (New) The method of claim 2, further comprising: generating for display on the first electronic device a second cluster of search results” in Fig. 7 (items 710-760 are clusters of results).
“determining a gaze of a user toward the first electronic device” in para. 64;
“wherein the determined gaze is directed toward a preferred cluster” in para. 64, Figs. 5-7 (content 1 (items 510, 610, and 710 each represent the preferred cluster));
“wherein the preferred cluster comprises one of the first cluster and the second cluster; and” in para. 64, Figs. 5-7 (content 1 (items 510, 610, and 710 are each part of many clusters (contents of search results));
“adjusting the display of the preferred cluster” in para. 70 and Figs. 5-6 (content 1 (preferred cluster) 510 is increased in size (610) and thus the display is adjusted).
Lee and Nudelman et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display of clusters in Nudelman et al. to include generating for display on the first electronic device a second cluster of search results determining a gaze of a user toward the first electronic device wherein the determined gaze is directed toward a preferred cluster wherein the preferred cluster comprises one of the first cluster and the second cluster; and adjusting the display of the preferred cluster” as taught by Lee.
The motivation would have been to provide preferred content more intuitively and conveniently and increasing the speed at which a user can search and consume content. See Lee para. 6 and para. 45.
With respect to claim 6, Lee teaches “6. (New) The method of claim 5, wherein adjusting the display of the preferred cluster comprises at least one of: graphically accentuating the preferred cluster, relocating the preferred cluster to a more prominent position, increasing the size of the preferred cluster, and increasing a number of media items in the preferred cluster” in Fig. 6 item 610, para. 12, para. 15, para. 70, and para. 74; Fig. 8 item 820 and 810; (Examiner finds content 1 610 is at least increased in size and thereby increased the number of media items contained in it); Fig. 8 item 810 (content 1) is in more prominent position than content 2 and content 8 in Fig. 8).
The motivation would have been to provide preferred content more intuitively and conveniently and increasing the speed at which a user can search and consume content. See Lee para. 6 and para. 45.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nudelman in view of Venkataraman and further in view of Hansson as applied to claim 2 and 12 above and further in view of Lee as applied to claim 5 and 15 above and further in view of Smith US 20160188181
With respect to claim 7, Lee et al. fails to explicitly teach but Smith US 20160188181 A1 teaches “receiving, at an optical sensor, reflected light from a light source” in para. 964 (“one embodiment, a user gaze tracking sensor may include a camera. In another embodiment, a user gaze tracking sensor may include an infra-red sensor. In various embodiments, a user gaze tracking sensor may also include a light source. In some embodiments, this light source may be used to observe reflections within a user's eye. In one embodiment, the light source may emit light primarily in the infra-red wavelengths”);
“wherein the reflected light is reflected off of at least one eye of the user” in para. 964 (“one embodiment, a user gaze tracking sensor may include a camera. In another embodiment, a user gaze tracking sensor may include an infra-red sensor. In various embodiments, a user gaze tracking sensor may also include a light source. In some embodiments, this light source may be used to observe reflections within a user's eye. In one embodiment, the light source may emit light primarily in the infra-red wavelengths”);
“and determining, based on the reflected light, an area of a display of the first electronic device” in para. 271 (“As an option, eye movement may also be monitored, to ascertain the manner in which the user is using the device (e.g., methodically reading text, quickly scanning text, examining a picture, visually searching for an icon, etc.)”); in para. 272 (“. . .In still another embodiment, the tracking of eye movement may be used to determine the type of selection (e.g., reading eye movement may trigger a text selection, etc. . . “; para. 848; para. 969 (“ a determination of user gaze may also be used to determine which virtual display layer a user is looking at. In various embodiments of a 3D layered user interface implemented on a device capable to tracking user gaze, user gaze may be used to select which display layer a user may interact with using an interaction surface. In one embodiment, a device with user gaze tracking sensor(s) may use user gaze tracking to determine one or more areas of attention”);
“wherein the area of the display corresponds to an area displaying the preferred cluster” paras. 919, 920, and para. 945 (“preferred cluster” broadly includes any group of search results preferred by the user).
Lee et al. and Smith are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the “determining a gaze of a user” as taught by Lee et al. to include “receiving, at an optical sensor, reflected light from a light source wherein the reflected light is reflected off of at least one eye of the user and determining, based on the reflected light, an area of a display of the first electronic device wherein the area of the display corresponds to an area displaying the preferred cluster” as taught by Smith.
The motivation would have been to allow a user to quickly access content without having to use their hands (speed).
With respect to claim 8, Smith teaches “8. (New) The method of claim 7, wherein the reflected light is reflected off of one of: an outer surface of a cornea of the least one eye of the user; an inner surface of the cornea of the least one eye of the user; an anterior surface of the lens of the least one eye of the user; or a posterior surface of the lens of the least one eye of the user” in para. 964 (Examiner finds the word “eye” teaches any and all portions of the eye). The motivation to combine these elements with Lee et al. is the same as in claim 7 above.
With respect to claim 9. Smith teaches “(New) The method of claim 7, wherein the light source comprises at least one of: an infrared (IR) light, a near infrared light, and a visible light” in para. 905 and para. 964. The motivation to combine these elements with Lee et al. is the same as in claim 7 above.
Claim 17-19 are rejected for the reasons give above for claims 7-9.
Response to Arguments
The double patenting rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues
Nudelman describes modifying the horizontal page width of a search results display. According to the Office Action, Nudelman fails to teach "generating for display on the first electronic device a first cluster of search results, wherein [a] number of search results included in the first cluster of search results is determined based on the device characteristics." See page 9 of Office Action. However, Nudelman is silent on dynamically determining a number of search results based on each alphanumeric character of the search query as the characters are received. In view of the amended limitation of the claims, "wherein, as each alphanumeric character of the search query is received in a sequential order, a number of search results included in the first cluster of search results is determined based on the device characteristics and based on each alphanumeric character of the search query," Nudelman does not teach or render obvious the amended claims. See amended claim 2.
Venkataraman describes limiting a "number of results [...] to a given threshold, which can, e.g., be determined by the display space for rendering the results and the ease of scrolling through the results." See para. [0008] of Venkataraman. While Venkataraman describes determining a threshold corresponding to a display space for rendering results, Venkataraman is silent on dynamically determining the threshold, merely describing a means of statically determining this threshold. Venkataraman's description of dynamically generating a set of records based on a user entering another character does not include recomputing the number of records displayed based on each character received. As such, Venkataraman fails to teach or render obvious "wherein, as each alphanumeric character of the search query is received, a number of search results included in the first cluster of search results is determined based on the device characteristics and based on each alphanumeric character of the search query," as described in the amended claims. See amended claim 2. Thus, Venkataraman fails to teach or render obvious the amended claims and fails to overcome the deficiencies of Nudelman.
Examiner agrees Nudelman and Venkataraman fail to explicitly teach the amended portions of claim 1 and claim 12. However, this argument is rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III whose telephone number is (571)270-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 10a-6:30pm EST M-F.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/ALBERT M PHILLIPS, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights