DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 05/05/2026 for application 19/054,481. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 1 is pending in this application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/05/2026, 06/12/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
A double patenting rejection is maintained because terminal disclaimer has not been filed by the applicant.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP § 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12292942 B2 (hereinafter '942) in view of Chitiveli et al. (US 8150843 B2).
Present Application 19/054481
US PAT. 12292942 B2
A process for operating an enhanced interactive graphical user interface for Internet search, annotation, and filtering on a personal computing device having a display screen, that enables a search engine user to automatically remove one or more search results that each reference a webpage that does not contain a desired search term element, enabling a faster operation of Internet search for the search engine user by enabling the search engine user to avoid spending time visiting a webpage that is missing the desired search term element, the process comprising: providing an Internet search user interface on a personal computing device; receiving a search request from a search engine user that is entered on the personal computing device, the search request comprising one or more search term elements; transmitting the search request to one or more remote servers operating a search engine; and receiving from the one or more remote servers, in response to the search request, a first Internet search result that references a first webpage that is missing a first search term element and a second Internet search result that references a second webpage; displaying the first Internet search result and the second Internet search result on the Internet search user interface, wherein the first Internet search result is organized for display as a first search result grouping comprising a first excerpt for the first webpage, a first Internet link for the first webpage, and a first warning, wherein the first warning comprises a text representing the first search term element and warns the search engine user that the first webpage is missing the first search term element, wherein the second Internet search result is organized for display as a second search result grouping that comprises a second excerpt from the second webpage and a second Internet link for the second webpage but does not comprise any warning that any of the one or more search term elements is missing from the second webpage, wherein the first and second search result groupings are each a unique search result grouping displayed separately from each other; and displaying a filtering option on the Internet search user interface, wherein the search engine user's selection of the filtering option causes the first Internet search result to be removed from the Internet search user interface.
automatically updating a user specific categorization model stored on the personal computing device or on a remote server, wherein the model is trained using feedback from the search engine user indicating corrections to webpage categorizations or search term element determinations; and modifying subsequent annotations or filtering operations for later search requests based on the updated user specific categorization model such that webpages similar to those previously corrected by the user are automatically assigned revised categorizations or filtering outcomes.
1. A process for operating an enhanced interactive graphical user interface for Internet search, annotation, and filtering on a personal computing device having a display screen, that enables a search engine user to automatically remove one or more search results that each reference a webpage that does not contain a desired search term element, enabling a faster operation of Internet search for the search engine user by enabling the search engine user to avoid spending time visiting a webpage that is missing the desired search term element, the process comprising: providing an Internet search user interface on a personal computing device; receiving a search request from a search engine user that is entered on the personal computing device, the search request comprising one or more search term elements; transmitting the search request to one or more remote servers operating a search engine; and receiving from the one or more remote servers, in response to the search request, a first Internet search result that references a first webpage that is missing a first search term element and a second Internet search result that references a second webpage; displaying the first Internet search result and the second Internet search result on the Internet search user interface, wherein the first Internet search result is organized for display as a first search result grouping comprising a first excerpt for the first webpage, a first Internet link for the first webpage, and a first warning, wherein the first warning comprises a text representing the first search term element and warns the search engine user that the first webpage is missing the first search term element, wherein the second Internet search result is organized for display as a second search result grouping that comprises a second excerpt from the second webpage and a second Internet link for the second webpage but does not comprise any warning that any of the one or more search term elements is missing from the second webpage, wherein the first and second search result groupings are each a unique search result grouping displayed separately from each other; and displaying a filtering option on the Internet search user interface, wherein the search engine user's selection of the filtering option causes the first Internet search result to be removed from the Internet search user interface.
With respect to claim 1, US Patent '942 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, except for the limitation " automatically updating a user specific categorization model stored on the personal computing device or on a remote server, wherein the model is trained using feedback from the search engine user indicating corrections to webpage categorizations or search term element determinations; and modifying subsequent annotations or filtering operations for later search requests based on the updated user specific categorization model such that webpages similar to those previously corrected by the user are automatically assigned revised categorizations or filtering outcomes".
However, Chitiveli teaches automatically updating a user specific categorization model stored on the personal computing device or on a remote server (col.2, lines 24-42 and col.10, lines 24-36, e.g., receiving a selection of one or more documents... and training a classifier using each selected document as a training example the classifier is used to dynamically/automatically categorize and re-rank documents based on an immediate selection of sample documents. Note: dynamically/automatically updates a statistical classifier (categorization model) using user feedback. The classifier may reside on a client computer, server, or distributed between both, corresponding to the claimed personal computing device or remote server), wherein the model is trained using feedback from the search engine user indicating corrections to webpage categorizations or search term element determinations (col.1, lines 43-65, e.g., receiving user selections identifying relevant and irrelevant documents and training a classifier using those documents as positive and negative training examples. Fig. 4 (steps 405, 410, 415) explicitly shows: (1) receive feedback indicating responsive documents, (2) optionally receive feedback indicating non-responsive documents, and (3) train classifier using positive and negative examples and col. 9, lines 1-35 explains these steps in detail. Note: user feedback indicating which search results are correct or incorrect is used to train the classifier. Those user selections effectively constitute corrections to document categorization with respect to the user's search intent); and modifying subsequent annotations or filtering operations for later search requests (col. 7, lines 1-37 teaches that after training, the classifier computes similarity scores for documents and re-ranks or excludes documents based on those scores and col. 8, lines 17-35 further teaches tagging documents from the improved search results so the tags are used to improve future searches. Fig. 4, steps 425-435 shows evaluating documents using the trained classifier and automatically re-ranking them. Note: the trained classifier changes subsequent search processing by filtering and re-ranking documents, and stored tags further improve later searches) based on the updated user specific categorization model such that webpages similar to those previously corrected by the user are automatically assigned revised categorizations or filtering outcomes (col. 7, lines 1-37 teaches supplying each document to the trained classifier, computing a similarity score, and automatically moving documents exceeding the threshold to the top of the search results or excluding those below the threshold and col. 9, lines 1-65 explains that documents matching the learned category represented by the user's feedback are automatically re-ranked, and the process can be repeated iteratively using additional user feedback. Note: Documents similar to those identified by the user are automatically recognized by the trained classifier and receive revised ranking/filtering treatment, satisfying the claimed automatic assignment of revised categorization or filtering outcomes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the functionalities of Chitiveli into the invention of US Patent ‘942 to improve search result relevance by enabling more accurate identification of documents responsive to a user’s search intent through user feedback-trained categorization and automatic re-ranking of similar search results (Chitiveli).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11971937 B2 (hereinafter '937) in view of Chitiveli et al. (US 8150843 B2).
Present Application 19/054481
US PAT. 11971937 B2
1. A process for operating an enhanced interactive graphical user interface for Internet search, annotation, and filtering on a personal computing device having a display screen, that enables a search engine user to automatically remove one or more search results that each reference a webpage that does not contain a desired search term element, enabling a faster operation of Internet search for the search engine user by enabling the search engine user to avoid spending time visiting a webpage that is missing the desired search term element, the process comprising: providing an Internet search user interface on a personal computing device; receiving a search request from a search engine user that is entered on the personal computing device, the search request comprising one or more search term elements; transmitting the search request to one or more remote servers operating a search engine; and receiving from the one or more remote servers, in response to the search request, a first Internet search result that references a first webpage that is missing a first search term element and a second Internet search result that references a second webpage; displaying the first Internet search result and the second Internet search result on the Internet search user interface, wherein the first Internet search result is organized for display as a first search result grouping comprising a first excerpt for the first webpage, a first Internet link for the first webpage, and a first warning, wherein the first warning comprises a text representing the first search term element and warns the search engine user that the first webpage is missing the first search term element, wherein the second Internet search result is organized for display as a second search result grouping that comprises a second excerpt from the second webpage and a second Internet link for the second webpage but does not comprise any warning that any of the one or more search term elements is missing from the second webpage, wherein the first and second search result groupings are each a unique search result grouping displayed separately from each other; and displaying a filtering option on the Internet search user interface, wherein the search engine user's selection of the filtering option causes the first Internet search result to be removed from the Internet search user interface.
automatically updating a user specific categorization model stored on the personal computing device or on a remote server, wherein the model is trained using feedback from the search engine user indicating corrections to webpage categorizations or search term element determinations; and modifying subsequent annotations or filtering operations for later search requests based on the updated user specific categorization model such that webpages similar to those previously corrected by the user are automatically assigned revised categorizations or filtering outcomes.
1. A process for Internet search, annotation, and filtering for providing an enhanced interactive graphical user interface for Internet search that enables a search engine user to automatically remove one or more search results that each reference a webpage that does not contain a desired search term element, enabling a faster operation of Internet search for the search engine user by enabling the search engine user to avoid spending time visiting a webpage that is missing the desired search term element, the process comprising: receiving a search request from a search engine user on a personal computing device having a display screen, the search request comprising one or more search term elements; generating, by operating a search engine in response to receiving the search request, a first Internet search result that references a first webpage that is missing a first search term element and a second Internet search result that references a second webpage; generating and providing, for display on the personal computing device, an Internet search user interface; wherein the Internet search user interface comprises the first Internet search result and a first warning to the search engine user that the first webpage is missing the first search term element, wherein the first warning comprises a text representing the first search term element; wherein the first Internet search result is organized for display as a first search result grouping comprising a first excerpt for the first webpage, a first Internet link for the first webpage, and the first warning; wherein the Internet search user interface further comprises the second Internet search result; wherein the second Internet search result is organized for display as a second search result grouping that comprises a second excerpt from the second webpage and a second Internet link for the second webpage but does not comprise any warning that any of the one or more search term elements is missing from the second webpage; wherein the first and second search result groupings are each a unique search result grouping displayed separately from each other; wherein the Internet search user interface provides a filtering option, wherein the search engine user's selection of the filtering option causes an updated Internet search user interface to be generated and provided for display on the personal computing device, and wherein the updated Internet search user interface does not display the first Internet search result; and wherein the process is performed on one or more servers located remotely from the personal computing device.
With respect to claim 1, US Patent '937 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, except for the limitation " automatically updating a user specific categorization model stored on the personal computing device or on a remote server, wherein the model is trained using feedback from the search engine user indicating corrections to webpage categorizations or search term element determinations; and modifying subsequent annotations or filtering operations for later search requests based on the updated user specific categorization model such that webpages similar to those previously corrected by the user are automatically assigned revised categorizations or filtering outcomes".
However, Chitiveli teaches automatically updating a user specific categorization model stored on the personal computing device or on a remote server (col.2, lines 24-42 and col.10, lines 24-36, e.g., receiving a selection of one or more documents... and training a classifier using each selected document as a training example the classifier is used to dynamically/automatically categorize and re-rank documents based on an immediate selection of sample documents. Note: dynamically/automatically updates a statistical classifier (categorization model) using user feedback. The classifier may reside on a client computer, server, or distributed between both, corresponding to the claimed personal computing device or remote server), wherein the model is trained using feedback from the search engine user indicating corrections to webpage categorizations or search term element determinations (col.1, lines 43-65, e.g., receiving user selections identifying relevant and irrelevant documents and training a classifier using those documents as positive and negative training examples. Fig. 4 (steps 405, 410, 415) explicitly shows: (1) receive feedback indicating responsive documents, (2) optionally receive feedback indicating non-responsive documents, and (3) train classifier using positive and negative examples and col. 9, lines 1-35 explains these steps in detail. Note: user feedback indicating which search results are correct or incorrect is used to train the classifier. Those user selections effectively constitute corrections to document categorization with respect to the user's search intent); and modifying subsequent annotations or filtering operations for later search requests (col. 7, lines 1-37 teaches that after training, the classifier computes similarity scores for documents and re-ranks or excludes documents based on those scores and col. 8, lines 17-35 further teaches tagging documents from the improved search results so the tags are used to improve future searches. Fig. 4, steps 425-435 shows evaluating documents using the trained classifier and automatically re-ranking them. Note: the trained classifier changes subsequent search processing by filtering and re-ranking documents, and stored tags further improve later searches) based on the updated user specific categorization model such that webpages similar to those previously corrected by the user are automatically assigned revised categorizations or filtering outcomes (col. 7, lines 1-37 teaches supplying each document to the trained classifier, computing a similarity score, and automatically moving documents exceeding the threshold to the top of the search results or excluding those below the threshold and col. 9, lines 1-65 explains that documents matching the learned category represented by the user's feedback are automatically re-ranked, and the process can be repeated iteratively using additional user feedback. Note: Documents similar to those identified by the user are automatically recognized by the trained classifier and receive revised ranking/filtering treatment, satisfying the claimed automatic assignment of revised categorization or filtering outcomes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the functionalities of Chitiveli into the invention of US Patent ‘937 to improve search result relevance by enabling more accurate identification of documents responsive to a user’s search intent through user feedback-trained categorization and automatic re-ranking of similar search results (Chitiveli).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Parikh discloses US 20080010269 A1 Automatic Relevance and Variety Checking for Web and Vertical Search Engines.
Roy et al discloses US 20090019036 A1 Systems and Related Methods of User-Guided Searching.
Mityagin et al discloses US 20090150375 A1 Detecting Zero-result Search Queries. Schwaighofer et al discloses US 20100262568 A1 Scalable Clustering.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad A Sana whose telephone number is (571)270-1753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 5712724098. 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.
/Mohammad A Sana/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights