Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present applicati7410on 19/049,894, filed on 2/10/2025 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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.
This application is a CON of 18/374,533 09/28/2023 PAT 12,265,581
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 2/10/2025 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Specification
At para 0001 (as filed 2/10/2025), applicant incorporated US Patent Application & provisional application #, applicant is hereby required to update the status of the US application(s) in response to this office action.
in the specification, at para 001 (as filed 2/10/2025), applicant incorporated US Patent Application & provisional application # Examiner notes that incorporation by reference of an application in a printed United States patent constitutes a special circumstance under 35 U.S.C. § 122 warranting that access of the original disclosure of the application be granted. The incorporation by reference will be interpreted as a waiver of confidentiality of only the original disclosure as filed, and not the entire application file, In re Gallo, 231 USPQ 496 (Comm'r Pat. 1986). If Applicant objects to access to the entire application file, two copies of the information incorporated by reference must be submitted along with the objection. Failure to provide the material within the period provided will result in the entire application (including prosecution) being made available to petitioner. The Office will not attempt to separate the noted materials from the remainder of the application. Compare In re Marsh Engineering Co., 1913 C.D. 183 (Comm'r Pat. 1913).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claim 1-20 in this application is given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim 1,10,16:
In view of three-prong analysis in MPEP 2181, the claim limitation
“a criterion identification module that identifies, based on content of the web search request, provider criterion that indicates factors to be considered in making a routing decision, the provider criterion including respective compute costs of servicing the search request using a search engine and a chat engine, respectively, the search engine configured to provide, based on the search request, existing content and the chat engine configured to generate, based on the search request, new content”, invokes 35 USC 112(f).
Prong A is met because: the claim element recites identification module which is a generic placeholder for search request, chat engine, compute costs. The specification recites that the module may be hardware or software (such as programming instructions) running on a microprocessor or generic computer. No specific definition for the term “module” is provided. The term “module” is not a sufficiently definite name of structure in this art.
Prong B is met because: the generic placeholder “module” is modified by functional language (without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: search request, chat engine, compute costs
Prong C is met because: this claim 1,10,16 element(s) is not further modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function
As such specification (para 0014-0029) does not provide adequate structure for performing the entire claimed function and/or fails to clearly link the structure to the function.
Claims 2-9,11-15,17-20 depends from claim 1,10,16 also rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and claims 1-20 are rejected on that basis.
35 U.S.C. 112(b):
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention
Claim 1,10,16 limitation “a criterion identification module that identifies, based on content of the web search request, provider criterion that indicates factors to be considered in making a routing decision, the provider criterion including respective compute costs of servicing the search request using a search engine and a chat engine, respectively, the search engine configured to provide, based on the search request, existing content and the chat engine configured to generate, based on the search request, new content”, invokes 35 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC 112,sixth paragraph (as stated above). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
In view of specification para 0014-0029 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification state search request has answer……i.e., content generation does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph
Claims 2-9,11-15,17-20 depends from claim 1,10,16 also rejected in the analysis of claim 1, and claims 1-20 are rejected on that basis
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 19/049,894 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,265,581. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims perform the same steps as the claims in the instant application.
Instant US application: 19/049,894
US Patent No. 12,265,581
Claim 1,10,16, A web search router comprising:
an input port that receives a web search request from a computer network;
a criterion identification module that identifies, based on content of the web search request, provider criterion that indicates factors to be considered in making a routing decision, the provider criterion including respective compute costs of servicing the search request using a search engine and a chat engine, respectively, the search engine configured to provide, based on the search request, existing content and the chat engine configured to generate, based on the search request, new content;
a criterion processor that determines, based on the provider criterion, a routing decision indicating whether to route the web search request to the search engine or the chat engine based, at least in part, on (i) respective accuracies of responses provided responsive to the search request using the search engine and the chat engine, respectively, and (ii) the provider criterion, the criterion processor weights the (i) respective accuracies of responses provided responsive to the search request using the search engine and the chat engine, respectively and (ii) the provider criterion, resulting in weighted criterion, the weights balance a higher cost in operating the chat engine with an accuracy of responses provided responsive to the search request; and
an output port coupled to receive the web search request and coupled to provide the web search request to the search engine or the chat engine over the computer network and in accord with the routing decision.
Claim 1,7,11 A web search router comprising:
an input port that receives a search request from a computer network, the search request including user-specified criterion that includes a factor that indicates a preference for using a chat engine or a search engine in answering the search request;
a criterion identification module that identifies, based on content of the search request, provider criterion that indicates factors to be considered in making a routing decision, the provider criterion including respective compute costs of servicing the search request using the search engine and the chat engine, respectively;
a criterion processor that determines, based on the provider criterion, a routing decision indicating whether to route the search request to a search engine or a chat engine coupled to the computer network based, at least in part, on (i) respective accuracies of responses provided responsive to the search request using the search engine and the chat engine, respectively, (ii) the provider criterion, and (iii) the user-specified criterion, the search engine configured to provide, based on the search request, existing content and the chat engine configured to generate, based on the search request, new content, the criterion processor weights the (i) respective accuracies of responses provided responsive to the search request using the search engine and the chat engine, respectively, (ii) the provider criterion, and (iii) the user-specified criterion resulting in weighted criterion, and the weights balance a higher cost in operating the chat engine with an accuracy of responses provided responsive to the search request; and
an output port coupled to receive the search request and coupled to provide the search request to the search engine or the chat engine over the computer network and in accord with the routing decision.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill was made to modify and/or to omit the additional elements of claim 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,265,581 to arrive at the claims 1-20 of the instant application 19/049,894 because the ordinary skilled person would have realized that the remaining element(s) would perform the same function as before and the only difference particularly claim 23,33 instant application 19/049,894 a criterion processor that determines, based on the provider criterion, a routing decision indicating whether to route the web search request to the search engine or the chat engine based, at least in part, on (i) respective accuracies of responses provided responsive to the search request using the search engine and the chat engine, respectively, and (ii) the provider criterion, the criterion processor weights the (i) respective accuracies of responses provided responsive to the search request using the search engine and the chat engine, respectively and (ii) the provider criterion, resulting in weighted criterion, the weights balance a higher cost in operating the chat engine with an accuracy of responses provided responsive to the search request; while claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,265,581, a criterion processor that determines, based on the provider criterion, a routing decision indicating whether to route the search request to a search engine or a chat engine coupled to the computer network based, at least in part, on (i) respective accuracies of responses provided responsive to the search request using the search engine and the chat engine, respectively, (ii) the provider criterion, and (iii) the user-specified criterion, the search engine configured to provide, based on the search request, existing content and the chat engine configured to generate, based on the search request, new content, the criterion processor weights the (i) respective accuracies of responses provided responsive to the search request using the search engine and the chat engine, respectively, (ii) the provider criterion, and (iii) the user-specified criterion resulting in weighted criterion, and the weights balance a higher cost in operating the chat engine with an accuracy of responses provided responsive to the search request; limitation(s) is/are absent of the limitation from instant application 19/049,894 claim 1,10,16, Omission and/or addition of elements and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before, as such instant application claim1,10,16 are broader
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify, add or omit the additional elements of claims 1,7,11 to arrive at the claims 1,10,16 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. "Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before." See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claim 1,10,16, directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
an input port that receives a web search request from a computer network;
a criterion identification module that identifies, based on content of the web search request, provider criterion that indicates factors to be considered in making a routing decision, the provider criterion including respective compute costs of servicing the search request using a search engine and a chat engine, respectively, the search engine configured to provide, based on the search request, existing content and the chat engine configured to generate, based on the search request, new content;
a criterion processor that determines, based on the provider criterion, a routing decision indicating whether to route the web search request to the search engine or the chat engine based, at least in part, on (i) respective accuracies of responses provided responsive to the search request using the search engine and the chat engine, respectively, and (ii) the provider criterion, the criterion processor weights the (i) respective accuracies of responses provided responsive to the search request using the search engine and the chat engine, respectively and (ii) the provider criterion, resulting in weighted criterion, the weights balance a higher cost in operating the chat engine with an accuracy of responses provided responsive to the search request; and
an output port coupled to receive the web search request and coupled to provide the web search request to the search engine or the chat engine over the computer network and in accord with the routing decision, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, criterion identification, compute costs, provider criterion, weights, responsive to the search request, weights balance a higher cost………… n the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking providing weights, compute cost
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 set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of process weights, weighted criteria in response to the search request to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (para 0017-0023, 0068-0073, of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is amount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition para: 0017-0023,0068-0073 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc...
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
As to Claim 2,11,17, further elaborates “wherein the provider criterion further includes a search intent of the search request, the search intent defining whether the intent of the search request is navigational, fact-finding, creative, or a combination thereof”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to Claim 3,12,18, further elaborates “wherein the provider criterion further includes at least one of (i) a complexity of the search request, (ii) a completeness of the search request, (iii) a popularity of the search request, (iv) a compute budget available to service the search request, or (v) a hallucination rate of the chat engine”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to Claim 4,19, further elaborates “wherein the search request includes user-specified criterion and wherein the routing decision is determined further based on the user-specified criterion”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to Claim 5,20, further elaborates “wherein the user-specified criterion includes data indicating a preference for accuracy of the responses of the search request”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to Claim 6,13, further elaborates “wherein the criterion processor operates a machine learning (ML) model based on the weighted criterion”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to Claim 7,14, further elaborates “wherein the criterion processor is configured to, responsive to determining a direct answer to the search request is available, route the search request to the search engine regardless of any other criterion”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to Claim 8,15, further elaborates “wherein the criterion processor is configured to, responsive to determining an answer to the search request requires generating content, route the search request to the chat engine regardless of any other criterion”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As to claim 9, further elaborates “further comprising a search history database communicatively coupled to the criterion processor, the search history database including entries that detail search requests that have a direct answer and search requests that are accurately answered by the chat engine”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdallah et al., (hereafter Abdallah), US Pub.No. 2019/0156177 published May,2019 in view of He et al., (hereafter He), US Pub. No. 2024/0362286 filed on Aprl,2023
As to claim 1. A web search router comprising: (Abdallah: fig 1, 8, 0066)
“an input port that receives a web search request from a computer network” (Abdallah: fig 1, fig 4, element 410 - Abdallah teaches both input and output of the client device where user input the search request, particularly search query input described in fig 4, element 410);
PNG
media_image1.png
261
186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
84
155
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a criterion identification module that identifies, based on content of the web search request, provider criterion that indicates factors to be considered in making a routing decision, the provider criterion including respective of servicing the search request using a search engine and a chat engine, respectively, the search engine configured to provide, based on the search request, existing content and the chat engine configured to generate, based on the search request, new content” (Abdallah: fig 1-2, fig 4, 0028-0029,0036 – Abdallah teaches user interface allows search query using natural language with the user element 106 of the client device (element 104), further generate search results that identifying a particular item of interest, further the generation of search content describes category of the search for example size, color etc., may corresponds to indicate factors, in this case generate the data that describes product type associated with the product description including product identifier), it is noted that the prior art of Abdallah teaches search module associated with conversation user interface element 120 to the user device communicating via network element 108 allows user search request configured to generate respective digital content as detailed in fig 1
a criterion processor that determines, based on the provider criterion, a routing decision indicating whether to route the web search request to the search engine or the chat engine based (Abdallah: Abstract, fig 1, fig 3, fig 4, 0024,0028,0036 - Abdallah teaches user inputting search query to generate search results implementing chatbot or artificial assistant system element 110 and user interaction with the artificial assistant system or chatbot as part of a natural language conversation element 112 and results of the search performed using search module that supports a level of granularity of each product type and overall provides improved accuracy)
PNG
media_image3.png
483
298
media_image3.png
Greyscale
at least in part, on (i) respective accuracies of responses provided responsive to the search request using the search engine and the chat engine, respectively, (Abdallah: fig 1, fig 3,0028 - Abdallah teaches search query request using user interface inputting search and search module receives search query from artificial assistant or chat bot),
and
PNG
media_image4.png
253
156
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(ii) the provider criterion, (Abdallah: fig 4, element 410 -search query input) “(i) respective accuracies of responses provided responsive to the search request using the search engine and the chat engine, respectively (Abdallah: fig 3,0028 - Abdallah teaches search query request using user interface inputting search and search module receives search query from artificial assistant or chat bot), and “(ii) the provider criterion, in operating the chat engine with an accuracy of responses provided responsive to the search request” (Abdallah: fig 2-3, 0024,0028 – Abdallah teaches artificial assistant system or chatbot configured to engage in natural language generate input data or search query that generates search result that particularly identifies item(s) of interest to the user) ; and
“an output port coupled to receive the web search request and coupled to provide the web search request to the search engine or the chat engine over the computer network and in accord with the routing decision” (Abdallah: fig 5,0040-0041 – Abdallah teaches search query using input search request and search results are based on artificial assistant or chatbot output the search results as detailed in fig 5)
PNG
media_image5.png
454
279
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It is however, noted that Abdallah does not teach “compute costs of servicing the search request”, “the criterion processor weights”, “resulting in weighted criterion, the weights balance a higher cost in operating”, although Abdallah suggests results of the search performed using search module that supports a level of granularity of each product type and overall provides improved accuracy may corresponds to compute costs of the search may identical to instant specification para 0023-0024 because cost associated with chat and search engine.
On the other hand, He disclosed “compute costs of servicing the search request” (He: fig 4, 0100-0101 – He teaches supervised learning data sets particularly defining cost function associated with search manager element 124, further the cost function defined with other parameters measure respective cost as detailed in 0100-0101)
PNG
media_image6.png
69
429
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The prior art of He disclosed “the criterion processor weights”, “resulting in weighted criterion, the weights balance a higher cost in operating” (He: fig 4, 0094, 0096, 0103, 0138, fig 7 – He teaches search manager associated with artificial intelligence architecture to train and deploy machine learning model processes respective weights and threshold value in improving accuracy relied on the search data and/or chat data
PNG
media_image7.png
183
239
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
239
113
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention semantic search and summarization of data in artificial intelligence (AI) platform to search, chat on collection of electronic documents of He et al., into search module in communication with artificial assistant system or chatbot, and machine learning using natural language of Abdallah because both Abdallah, He teaches natural language supported search query (Abdallah: fig 1-2, Abstract; He: fig 1, 0037,0039-0040) and they both Abdallah, He are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Abdallah, He teaches natural language search queries supporting chat bot (He: 0067,0087), it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly using artificial intelligence, machine learning techniques identify, extract respective search associated with chat information of the web content, search results include set of candidate vectors that are semantically similar to the search vector of the search query (He: 0071), further allows predict outcomes based on the input data, training data, that recognize patterns and trends (He: 0080) allows to compute not only weight with respect to threshold values, but also compute cost (He: 0096, 0101), thereby improves interactive training data, search accuracy, and search results including a set of respective candidate vectors that are semantically similar to the search vectors (He: 0041), thus improves overall quality and reliability of the system.
As to Claim 2,11, the combination of Abdallah, He disclosed “wherein the provider criterion further includes a search intent of the search request, the search intent defining whether the intent of the search request is navigational, fact-finding, creative, or a combination thereof” (Abdallah: fig 2, 0024-0025)
PNG
media_image9.png
262
201
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 3,12, the combination of Abdallah, He disclosed “wherein the provider criterion further includes at least one of (i) a complexity of the search request, (Abdallah: 0035 complexity of search request may corresponds to text string of natural language processing of search is identical to instant specification para 0031(ii) a completeness of the search request, (Abdallah: fig 5 search query retrieves all relevant information corresponds to completeness of the search request) (iii) a popularity of the search request, (Abdallah: 0034-0035, fig 3) (iv) a compute budget available to service the search request (Abdallah: 0037-0038), or (v) a hallucination rate of the chat engine (Abdallah: 0024-0025).
As to Claim 4, the combination of Abdallah, He disclosed “wherein the search request includes user-specified criterion and wherein the routing decision is determined further based on the user-specified criterion” (Abdallah: 0034-0035,0040-0041)
As to Claim 5, the combination of Abdallah, He disclosed “wherein the user-specified criterion includes data indicating a preference for accuracy of the responses of the search request” (Abdallah: 0036-0037)
As to Claim 6,13, the combination of Abdallah, He disclosed “wherein the criterion processor operates a machine learning (ML) model based on the weighted criterion” (He: fig 3-4, 0080-008,0096,0138-0139)
As to Claim 7,14, the combination of Abdallah, He disclosed “wherein the criterion processor is configured to, responsive to determining a direct answer to the search request is available, route the search request to the search engine regardless of any other criterion” (He: 0143-0144)
As to Claim 8,15, the combination of Abdallah, He disclosed “wherein the criterion processor is configured to, responsive to determining an answer to the search request requires generating content, route the search request to the chat engine regardless of any other criterion” (Abdallah : fig 5, 0040-0041 – search result associated with the artificial assistant or chatbot; He: 0122-0123).
Claims 9,16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdallah et al., (hereafter Abdallah), US Pub.No. 2019/0156177, He et al., (hereafter He), US Pub. No. 2024/0362286 filed on Aprl,2023 in view of Yushkina et al., (hereafter Yushkina), US Pub. No. 2023/0047383 filed based on provisional application Aug, 2021
As to 9, the combination of Abdallah, He disclosed “entries that detail search requests that have a direct answer and search requests that are accurately answered by the chat engine“ (Abdallah fig 5, 0040-0041). It is however, noted that both Abdalah, He do not disclose ““further comprising a search history database communicatively coupled to the criterion processor, the search history database”. On the other hand, Yushkina disclosed “further comprising a search history database communicatively coupled to the criterion processor, the search history database”
PNG
media_image10.png
124
113
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
175
230
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
123
91
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
45
393
media_image13.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention user interfaces for surfacing web browser history data particularly search history stored in browser repositories of Yushkina et al., into users of Abdallah, He because all the prior art of references teaches user interface allows perform searches (Abdallah: Abstract, fig 1, fig 3; He: fig 1, 0050 and Yushkina: Abstract, fig 1-2, fig 4-5) and all the prior arts specifically teaches machine learning (Abdallah: fig 3, He: fig 1, 0062 and Yushkina:0031), and they are from the same field of endeavor. Because all the prior art of references teaches and/or supports search query, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly browser history data into browser repositories, while history clusters representing search activities related to particular topics, i.e., history cluster listing generated using ML algorithms display to the user without user intervention (Yushkina: 0004-0005) thereby improves overall quality and reliability of the search system
As to Claim 16, A system for web search routing, the system comprising: (Abdallah: fig 1, 8, 0066)
a criterion identification module that identifies, based on content of the web search request, provider criterion that indicates factors to be considered in making a routing decision, the provider criterion including respective of servicing the search request using a search engine and a chat engine, respectively, the search engine configured to provide, based on the search request, existing content and the chat engine configured to generate, based on the search request, new content” (Abdallah: fig 1-2, fig 4, 0028-0029,0036 – Abdallah teaches user interface allows search query using natural language with the user element 106 of the client device (element 104), further generate search results that identifying a particular item of interest, further the generation of search content describes category of the search for example size, color etc., may corresponds to indicate factors, in this case generate the data that describes product type associated with the product description including product identifier), it is noted that the prior art of Abdallah teaches search module associated with conversation user interface element 120 to the user device communicating via network element 108 allows user search request configured to generate respective digital content as detailed in fig 1
a criterion processor that determines, based on the provider criterion, a routing decision indicating whether to route the web search request to the search engine or the chat engine based (Abdallah: Abstract, fig 1, fig 3, fig 4, 0024,0028,0036 - Abdallah teaches user inputting search query to generate search results implementing chatbot or artificial assistant system element 110 and user interaction with the artificial assistant system or chatbot as part of a natural language conversation element 112 and results of the search performed using search module that supports a level of granularity of each product type and overall provides improved accuracy)
PNG
media_image3.png
483
298
media_image3.png
Greyscale
at least in part, on (i) respective accuracies of responses provided responsive to the search request using the search engine and the chat engine, respectively, (Abdallah: fig 1, fig 3,0028 - Abdallah teaches search query request using user interface inputting search and search module receives search query from artificial assistant or chat bot),
and
PNG
media_image4.png
253
156
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(ii) the provider criterion, (Abdallah: fig 4, element 410 -search query input) “(i) respective accuracies of responses provided responsive to the search request using the search engine and the chat engine, respectively (Abdallah: fig 3,0028 - Abdallah teaches search query request using user interface inputting search and search module receives search query from artificial assistant or chat bot), and “(ii) the provider criterion, in operating the chat engine with an accuracy of responses provided responsive to the search request” (Abdallah: fig 2-3, 0024,0028 – Abdallah teaches artificial assistant system or chatbot configured to engage in natural language generate input data or search query that generates search result that particularly identifies item(s) of interest to the user) ; and
“an output port coupled to receive the web search request and coupled to provide the web search request to the search engine or the chat engine over the computer network and in accord with the routing decision” (Abdallah: fig 5,0040-0041 – Abdallah teaches search query using input search request and search results are based on artificial assistant or chatbot output the search results as detailed in fig 5)
PNG
media_image5.png
454
279
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It is however, noted that Abdallah does not teach “compute costs of servicing the search request”, “the criterion processor weights”, “resulting in weighted criterion, the weights balance a higher cost in operating”, although Abdallah suggests results of the search performed using search module that supports a level of granularity of each product type and overall provides improved accuracy may corresponds to compute costs of the search may identical to instant specification para 0023-0024 because cost associated with chat and search engine.
On the other hand, He disclosed “compute costs of servicing the search request” (He: fig 4, 0100-0101 – He teaches supervised learning data sets particularly defining cost function associated with search manager element 124, further the cost function defined with other parameters measure respective cost as detailed in 0100-0101)
PNG
media_image6.png
69
429
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The prior art of He disclosed “the criterion processor weights”, “resulting in weighted criterion, the weights balance a higher cost in operating” (He: fig 4, 0094, 0096, 0103, 0138, fig 7 – He teaches search manager associated with artificial intelligence architecture to train and deploy machine learning model processes respective weights and threshold value in improving accuracy relied on the search data and/or chat data
PNG
media_image7.png
183
239
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
239
113
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention semantic search and summarization of data in artificial intelligence (AI) platform to search, chat on collection of electronic documents of He et al., into search module in communication with artificial assistant system or chatbot, and machine learning using natural language of Abdallah because both Abdallah, He teaches natural language supported search query (Abdallah: fig 1-2, Abstract; He: fig 1, 0037,0039-0040) and they both Abdallah, He are from the same field of endeavor. Because both Abdallah, He teaches natural language search queries supporting chat bot (He: 0067,0087), it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly using artificial intelligence, machine learning techniques identify, extract respective search associated with chat information of the web content, search results include set of candidate vectors that are semantically similar to the search vector of the search query (He: 0071), further allows predict outcomes based on the input data, training data, that recognize patterns and trends (He: 0080) allows to compute not only weight with respect to threshold values, but also compute cost (He: 0096, 0101), thereby improves interactive training data, search accuracy, and search results including a set of respective candidate vectors that are semantically similar to the search vectors (He: 0041), thus improves overall quality and reliability of the system.
It is however, noted that both the combination of Abdallah, He do not disclose “search history database”, “a web search router communicatively coupled to the search history database, the web search router”. On the other hand, Yushkina et al., disclosed “search history database” (Yushkina: Abstract, 0035, line 1-3,0040, fig 1, fig 2, element 216 browser repositories stores browsing history, fig 4A, 410, search history, fig 5, element 514,0045, 0070,0073 - Yushkina teaches search history data for example browser history element 220 into history clusters element 222)
PNG
media_image10.png
124
113
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
175
230
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
123
91
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
45
393
media_image13.png
Greyscale
“a web search router communicatively coupled to the search history database, the web search router” (Yushkina: fig 1-2, 0045-0046,0071,0073)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention user interfaces for surfacing web browser history data particularly search history stored in browser repositories of Yushkina et al., into users of Abdallah, He because all the prior art of references teaches user interface allows perform searches (Abdallah: Abstract, fig 1, fig 3; He: fig 1, 0050 and Yushkina: Abstract, fig 1-2, fig 4-5) and all the prior arts specifically teaches machine learning (Abdallah: fig 3, He: fig 1, 0062 and Yushkina:0031), and they are from the same field of endeavor. Because all the prior art of references teaches and/or supports search query, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to substitute and/or modify one method for the other particularly browser history data into browser repositories, while history clusters representing search activities related to particular topics, i.e., history cluster listing generated using ML algorithms display to the user without user intervention (Yushkina: 0004-0005) thereby improves overall quality and reliability of the search system
As to Claim 17, the combination of Abdallah, He, Yushkina disclosed “wherein the provider criterion further includes a search intent of the search request, the search intent defining whether the intent of the search request is navigational, fact-finding, creative, or a combination thereof” (Abdallah: fig 2, 0024-0025)
PNG
media_image9.png
262
201
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 18, the combination of Abdallah, He, Yushkina disclosed “wherein the provider criterion further includes at least one of (i) a complexity of the search request, (Abdallah: 0035 complexity of search request may corresponds to text string of natural language processing of search is identical to instant specification para 0031(ii) a completeness of the search request, (Abdallah: fig 5 search query retrieves all relevant information corresponds to completeness of the search request) (iii) a popularity of the search request, (Abdallah: 0034-0035, fig 3) (iv) a compute budget available to service the search request (Abdallah: 0037-0038), or (v) a hallucination rate of the chat engine (Abdallah: 0024-0025).
As to Claim 19, the combination of Abdallah, He, Yushkina disclosed “wherein the search request includes user-specified criterion and wherein the routing decision is determined further based on the user-specified criterion” (Abdallah: 0034-0035,0040-0041)
As to Claim 5,20 the combination of Abdallah, He, Yushkina disclosed “wherein the user-specified criterion includes data indicating a preference for accuracy of the responses of the search request” (Abdallah: 0036-0037)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2019/0156177
b. US Pub. No. 2024/0362286
c. US Pub. No. 2023/0047383
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 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)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154