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
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendment filed on 6/23/2026
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 2/10/2025 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
35 USC § 112
In view of applicant’s amendment, remarks, the rejection under 35 USC 112 as set forth in the previous office action is hereby withdrawn
.
35 USC § 101
In view of applicant’s amendment, remarks, the rejection under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the previous office action is hereby withdrawn
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 (as amended 6/23/2026) 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 includes a trained machine learning model or a heuristic model, the criterion identification module configured to identify, 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, and a search intent classification of the web search request, the search engine configured to retrieve based on the search request, existing content and the chat engine configured to generate, based on the search request, new content using a generative model;
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, (ii) the search intent classification, and (iii) 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 a weight for the provider criterion is determined based at least in part on an available compute budget of a search provider for the chat engine such that a lower available compute budget of the chat engine results in a higher likelihood of routing the web search request to the search engine;; 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 1,10,16 instant application 19/049,894 (ii) the search intent classification, and (iii) 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 a weight for the provider criterion is determined based at least in part on an available compute budget of a search provider for the chat engine such that a lower available compute budget of the chat engine results in a higher likelihood of routing the web search request to the search engine; while claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,265,581, (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.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended or a terminal disclaimer filed to overcome the rejection(s) under nonstatutory double patenting, set forth in this Office Action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation which is consistence with the Applicant’s specification. In view of applicant’s amendment to the claims, remarks filed on 6/23/2026, the prior art Abdalla, US Pub.No. 2019/0156177 in view of He, US Pub. No. 2024/0362286 do not disclose, make obvious or otherwise suggest the structure of applicant’s
“(iii) 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 a weight for the provider criterion is determined based at least in part on an available compute budget of a search provider for the chat engine such that a lower available compute budget of the chat engine results in a higher likelihood of routing the web search request to the search engine”, in claim 1,10,16
These features, together with the other limitations of the independent claims are novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. The dependent claims 2-9,11-15,17-20 being definite, enabled by the specification, and further limiting to the independent claims are also allowable.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights