DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings have been reviewed and are accepted as being in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121.
Priority
5. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent PCT/CN2023/128455 10/31/2023 and obtained by the office from Digital Access Service (DAS) on 4/3/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 3, 4, 6 recite the limitations "an intelligent search control" and “a trigger operation” later in each claim respectively is recited as “the intelligent search control” and “a trigger operation”. However, each claim recites “an intelligent search control”, appears to be the same control and “a trigger control”, appropriate correction is requested. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the mentioned limitations in the claims 4 and 6.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 6-7, recite “an input method”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the mentioned limitations in the claims 3-4 and 6-7, it should be “the input method”, appropriate correction is requested.
Claim 13, recites “a first sample application” and keeps repeating it, the second time and further, should be “the first sample application”, clarification and appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites “A method for…”; the claim recites a series of steps and therefore is a process. Claim 17 recites “A computer device…” therefore the claim is a machine. Claim 20 recites “A non-transitory CRM…”, therefore the claim is a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One: Claims 1, recite the limitations" to a second application interface in response to a selection operation on a target search engine in the candidate search engine,..;" “displaying a candidate search engine; and switching from the first application interface to a second application interface in response to a selection operation on a target search engine in the candidate search engine” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting a "computer device" “search engine”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
For example, “selecting” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper reviewing the URL list down on a sheet of paper and identify the relevant ones.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “obtaining a search term from a content input area of a first application interface.."; this limitation amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); and "displaying…"; this limitation is a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements “displaying” and "switching from the first application interface..."; The limitations amount to a data gathering step and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
The computer device and the non-transitory computer-readable storage media in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations "switching operation on a target search engine." are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc.
As per Claim 2, the claim recites: “wherein obtaining the search term from the content input area of the first application interface comprises: displaying an input method program based on the content input area of the first application interface; and
obtaining, through the input method program, the search term from the content input area of the first application interface. A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per Claim 3, the claim recites: wherein an input method program comprises an intelligent search control; and the obtaining the search term from the content input area of the first application interface comprises: obtaining, in response to a trigger operation on the intelligent search control, the search term from the content input area of the first application interface when the content input area comprises the search term. A claim to displaying in response to “a trigger operation" are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc.
As per Claim 4, the claim recites: wherein an input method program comprises a first content input area and an intelligent search control; and obtaining the search term from the content input area of the first application interface comprises: displaying, in response to a trigger operation on the intelligent search control, a second content input area when the first content input area does not comprise the search term; and obtaining an inputted search term from the second content input area in response to a search term input operation in the second content input area. A claim to displaying in response to “a trigger operation" are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc.
As per Claim 5, the claim recites: further comprising: invoking a start input view interface; performing a bit operation based on an attribute parameter and a constant parameter in editor information parameters of the start input view interface, to obtain an object type attribute of the content input area of the first application interface; and
determining the content input area of the first application interface as the first content input area when the object type attribute is an edit box constant. Merely observing and editing parameters, again these limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, without more . . . [are] mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
As per Claim 6, the claim recites: wherein an input method program comprises an intelligent search control; and obtaining the search term from the content input area of the first application interface comprises: displaying the content input area on the first application interface in response to a trigger operation on the intelligent search control; and obtaining an inputted search term from the content input area in response to a search term input operation in a second content input area. A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per Claim 7, the claim recites: wherein displaying the candidate search engine comprises: displaying a search engine list in a display area of an input method control, the search engine list comprising at least two candidate search engines, the at least two candidate search engines comprising search engines of different sources, and the search engines of different sources corresponding to different websites or different applications; or the at least two candidate search engines comprising search engines in different fields. A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per Claim 8, the claim recites: wherein a second application comprises an application corresponding to the target search engine; and switching from the first application interface to the second application interface in response to the selection operation on the target search engine in the candidate search engine comprises: in response to the selection operation on the target search engine in the candidate search engine, jumping from a first application to the application corresponding to the target search engine based on uniform resource locator information corresponding to the application of the target search engine; and transmitting the search term to the application corresponding to the target search engine, to switch from the first application interface to the second application interface provided by the second application for displaying. A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per Claim 9, the claim recites: wherein the second application further comprises a browser; and the method further comprises: when the jumping is incapable of being performed from the first application to the application corresponding to the target search engine, jumping from the first application to the browser based on uniform resource locator information corresponding to the browser; and transmitting the search term to the browser, to switch from the first application interface to the second application interface provided by the browser for displaying. A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per Claim 10, the claim recites: wherein displaying the candidate search engine comprises: displaying the search engine list, the search engine list comprising the candidate search engines; the method further comprises: obtaining a first application identifier of the first application and a search engine distribution table, the search engine distribution table being configured for representing distribution of switching from the first application to different candidate search engines for searching by users when using the first application; and generating the search engine list based on the first application identifier and the search engine distribution table. A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per Claim 11, the claim recites: wherein the candidate search engines in the search engine distribution table comprise search engines of different sources, and the search engine distribution table comprises ratios of quantities of users switching from the first application to the search engines of different sources when using the first application; and generating the search engine list based on the first application identifier and the search engine distribution table comprises: obtaining, from the search engine distribution table based on the first application identifier and the search engine distribution table, a first quantity of search engines of different sources that have largest user quantity ratios; determining the first quantity of search engines of different sources as the candidate search engines in the search engine list when a sum of the user quantity ratios of the first quantity of search engines is greater than or equal to a ratio threshold; and obtaining a preset first quantity of search engines in different fields when the sum of the user quantity ratios of the first quantity of search engines is less than the threshold, and determining the first quantity of search engines in different fields as the candidate search engines in the search engine list. (See COFFELT V. NVIDIA CORPORATION, The calculations “ratios” claimed can be done by a human mentally or with a pen and paper.” It further added that “analyzing information by steps people [can] go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more . . . [are] mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
As per Claim 12, the claim recites: wherein the search engine distribution table comprises a destination search engine distribution table; and the method further comprises: obtaining usage data of seed users, the usage data being data of switching from a first sample application to different candidate sample search engines for searching by the seed users when using the first sample application, and the candidate sample search engines being a second quantity of randomly selected sample search engines; and generating the destination search engine distribution table according to the usage data of the seed users, the destination search engine distribution table being configured for representing distribution of switching from the first sample application to the different candidate sample search engines for searching by the seed users when using the first sample application. A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per Claim 13, the claim recites: wherein the search engine distribution table comprises a manually configured search engine distribution table; and the method further comprises: obtaining a first sample application identifier of a first sample application, and manually configured candidate sample search engine identifiers corresponding to the first sample application identifier; and generating the manually configured search engine distribution table based on the first sample application identifier and the candidate sample search engine identifiers, the manually configured search engine distribution table being configured for representing distribution of switching from the first sample application to different candidate sample search engines for searching by users when using the first sample application. A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Furthermore, manually configuring, done by a user.
As per Claim 14, the claim recites: further comprising: configuring uniform resource locator information for each candidate search engine, the uniform resource locator information being configured for pointing to a search result obtained through searching for the search term on the corresponding candidate search engine. A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per Claim 15, the claim recites: wherein the uniform resource locator information comprises first uniform resource locator information; and the configuring uniform resource locator information for each candidate search engine comprises: specifying, during starting an application component of the candidate search engine, a data attribute of a runtime binding mechanism as the first uniform resource locator information of an application corresponding to the candidate search engine, setting a package attribute of the runtime binding mechanism as a candidate search engine identifier of the candidate search engine, and setting an object attribute of the runtime binding mechanism as an object view constant, the runtime binding mechanism being configured for starting the application corresponding to the candidate search engine and opening the search result pointed to by the first uniform resource locator information. A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per Claim 16, the claim recites: wherein the uniform resource locator information comprises second uniform resource locator information; and the method further comprises: during starting the application component of the candidate search engine, when the specified data attribute of the runtime binding mechanism is not configured as the first uniform resource locator information, specifying the data attribute of the runtime binding mechanism as the second uniform resource locator information of a browser corresponding to the candidate search engine, and setting the object attribute of the runtime binding mechanism as the object view constant, the runtime binding mechanism being configured for starting the browser and opening the search result pointed to by the second uniform resource locator information. A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per Claims 17-20, being the computer device and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims corresponding to the system claims 1-3 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection of the rejections of Claims 1-3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
11. Claim(s) 1-2, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kollenkark et al (US 10,534,789).
As per Claim 1, Kollenkark discloses:
A content search method, performed by a computer device, the method comprising: obtaining a search term from a content input area of a first application interface, and displaying a candidate search engine; (col. 2, lines 22-36, “As content is consumed on one device, information associated with the content can form the basis by which a search can be automatically conducted by a search engine supported by the web service. Search results can then be returned and rendered on a different device to provide a companion experience. The search results can include any suitable type of data that is returned including, by way of example and not limitation, traditional search results that are typically returned responsive to a search conducted by a web search engine, aggregated content, third party content and the like. Examples of such content are provided below…” and see Figures 2 and 4) and switching from the first application interface to a second application interface in response to a selection operation on a target search engine in the candidate search engine, (Col. 7, lines 45-55, “As content changes on the primary screen, so too does the companion content by virtue of the automatic transmission of information from the primary screen to the auxiliary screen…” See Figures 2 and 4-5, for user selectable inputs) a search result, obtained after a searching process of the search term on the target search engine, being displayed on the second application interface. (Col. 1, lines 40-48, “As content is consumed on one device, information associated with the content can form the basis by which a search can be automatically conducted by a search engine supported by the web service. Search results can then be returned and rendered on a different device to provide a companion experience.” And Col. 3, lines 53-60, “As content is consumed on one device, information associated with the content can form the basis by which a search can be automatically conducted by a search engine supported by the web service. Search results can then be returned and rendered on a different device to provide a companion experience.” And See Figures 2 and 4-5).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Kollenkark discloses: wherein obtaining the search term from the content input area of the first application interface comprises: displaying an input method program based on the content input area of the first application interface; (Col. 4, lines 38-44, “…other searching capabilities for input that is provided by companion experience module 104. To this end, web services 212 can include one or more search engines that can search not only across the Internet, but across resources that may be distributed throughout the server farm.”) and obtaining, through the input method program, the search term from the content input area of the first application interface. (col. 7, lines 46-55, “…an automated companion experience that relieves the user of having to manually enter search terms associated with content that is being consumed on the primary screen. As content changes on the primary screen, so too does the companion content by virtue of the automatic transmission of information from the primary screen to the auxiliary screen” and See Figures 3-5)
As per Claims 17-20, being the computer device and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims corresponding to the system claims 1-2 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection of the rejections of Claims 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
13. Claim(s) 3-10, 13-14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollenkark et al (US 10,534,789), in view of Hunter (2014/000695), hereinafter “Kollenkark” and “Hunter” respectively.
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Kollenkark discloses: wherein an input method program comprises an intelligent search control; and the obtaining the search term from the content input area of the first application interface comprises: obtaining, in response to a trigger operation on the intelligent search control, the search term from the content input area of the first application interface when the content input area comprises the search term. (col. 2, lines 19-36, “either automatically, or through a user prompt, initiate the companion experience. Once the devices discover each other, communication between the devices can occur either through a peer-to-peer connection or through a network…” and col. 5, lines 36-50, “user interface that notifies the user that a companion experience is possible by virtue of the proximity of one or more computing devices. In the example just above, the television serving as the primary screen would present a user interface to the user that prompts the user for a companion experience”)
Kollenkark discloses a user prompt, however not specifically a trigger operation.
Hunter discloses the above claimed features as follows:
(Par [0401], “info screen--triggered by the user pressing an `info` button (or similar), to display information about the current item of media content (optionally including links to related content” and par [1041], “…all user input to the Device is processed by Direct Frame Buffer (DirectFB) and raw input events are converted to window events by the Window Manager and then filtered and routed to the correct component to ensure that the associated function is handled).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Hunter specifically inferring using a trigger operation into the method of OMOIGUI to take advantage on requesting the respective information regarding to a specific search. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement providing an instruction to generate results.
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Kollenkark discloses: wherein an input method program comprises a first content input area and an intelligent search control; and obtaining the search term from the content input area of the first application interface comprises: displaying, in response to a trigger operation on the intelligent search control, a second content input area when the first content input area does not comprise the search term; (See Figures 1-4) and obtaining an inputted search term from the second content input area in response to a search term input operation in the second content input area. (col. 7, lines 46-55, “…an automated companion experience that relieves the user of having to manually enter search terms associated with content that is being consumed on the primary screen. As content changes on the primary screen, so too does the companion content by virtue of the automatic transmission of information from the primary screen to the auxiliary screen” and See Figures 3-5).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Hunter discloses: further comprising: invoking a start input view interface; performing a bit operation based on an attribute parameter and a constant parameter in editor information parameters of the start input view interface, to obtain an object type attribute of the content input area of the first application interface; (Par [2163], “2. On-demand Portal Services may optionally provide the CRID of a media player Application. This media player will then be invoked to present all Publications associated with the Service. If no Service locator is specified in the Service fragment a default media player will be used for playback.” And par [2170-2175], disclosing types of service and media) and determining the content input area of the first application interface as the first content input area when the object type attribute is an edit box constant. (Par [0674], box to set a PIN, and par [0914], “The system has provided a metadata field to specify sort order by title alphabetically. Preferably, where the programme or web app begins with `The` or `A`, the content supplier provides the Sort Title with a following comma and the word appended to the end e.g. `The One Show` should be supplied as `One Show, The` in the Sort Title field. This process is not done by the platform, as the CP has full editorial control to decide if the programme is listed under "T" or "O". The programme cannot be listed under both in the alphabetical list.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Hunter specifically inferring using a trigger operation into the method of OMOIGUI to take advantage on requesting the respective information regarding to a specific search. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement providing an instruction to generate results.
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Hunter discloses: wherein an input method program comprises an intelligent search control; and obtaining the search term from the content input area of the first application interface comprises: displaying the content input area on the first application interface in response to a trigger operation on the intelligent search control; (Par [0063], “Preferably, the user interface further comprises means for displaying content items that have previously been broadcast together with content items that have yet to be broadcast.” And par [0401], “triggered by the user pressing an `info` button (or similar), to display information about the current item of media content (optionally including links to related content”) and obtaining an inputted search term from the content input area in response to a search term input operation in a second content input area. (Par [0401], “info screen--triggered by the user pressing an `info` button (or similar), to display information about the current item of media content (optionally including links to related content” and par [1041], “…all user input to the Device is processed by Direct Frame Buffer (DirectFB) and raw input events are converted to window events by the Window Manager and then filtered and routed to the correct component to ensure that the associated function is handled”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Hunter specifically inferring using a trigger operation into the method of OMOIGUI to take advantage on requesting the respective information regarding to a specific search. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement providing an instruction to generate results.
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Hunter discloses: wherein displaying the candidate search engine comprises: displaying a search engine list in a display area of an input method control, the search engine list comprising at least two candidate search engines, (Par [0573], “At this point the combined list only contains a service ID and service locator 236 for each channel. The Metadata Broker 232 then queries the MAS 128-2 via the B2C interface 152 to retrieve service description metadata for each channel which includes the name of the IP channel, logo, Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) and its LCN (shown by line 240). The service ID is used as the basis for this look-up. Listing IP Channels in the Platform UI”)
the at least two candidate search engines comprising search engines of different sources, and the search engines of different sources corresponding to different websites or different applications; or the at least two candidate search engines comprising search engines in different fields. (Par [0221] FIG. 22 shows the different sources for On Demand content” and par [0345], “different sources”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Hunter specifically inferring using a trigger operation into the method of OMOIGUI to take advantage on requesting the respective information regarding to a specific search. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement providing an instruction to generate results.
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Hunter discloses: wherein a second application comprises an application corresponding to the target search engine; (Par [1877], “Additionally, the ongoing status of transactions can be monitored asynchronously by the Metadata Publishing Party via a second HTTP service endpoint.”) and switching from the first application interface to the second application interface in response to the selection operation on the target search engine in the candidate search engine comprises: (Par [0713], “presented to the viewer following selection of content (or a player) in one of the entry points.” Par [1563], “Closed User Group targeting metadata may be supplied for any type of Service Information Fragment: Par [1564], “If a Linear Service is targeted at one or more Closed User Groups, the search engine then only returns results from its schedule if the client is a member of one of those groups” and par [1565] An On-demand Portal Service that is targeted”) in response to the selection operation on the target search engine in the candidate search engine, jumping from a first application to the application corresponding to the target search engine based on uniform resource locator information corresponding to the application of the target search engine; (Par 1564-1565 and Figures 19-21) and transmitting the search term to the application corresponding to the target search engine, to switch from the first application interface to the second application interface provided by the second application for displaying. (Par [0474], “In some embodiments, the media client device 130 monitors the bitrate at which the CDN 1100 provides the media content and determine whether to report performance to the ISP 132 and/or whether to switch another possible CDN 1100 if required.” And see Figures 19 and 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Hunter specifically inferring using a trigger operation into the method of OMOIGUI to take advantage on requesting the respective information regarding to a specific search. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement providing an instruction to generate results.
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated and further Kollenkark discloses: wherein the second application further comprises a browser; and the method further comprises: when the jumping is incapable of being performed from the first application to the application corresponding to the target search engine, jumping from the first application to the browser based on uniform resource locator information corresponding to the browser; and transmitting the search term to the browser, to switch from the first application interface to the second application interface provided by the browser for displaying. (col. 7, lines 46-55, “…an automated companion experience that relieves the user of having to manually enter search terms associated with content that is being consumed on the primary screen. As content changes on the primary screen, so too does the companion content by virtue of the automatic transmission of information from the primary screen to the auxiliary screen” and See Figures 3-5).
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further Hunter discloses: wherein displaying the candidate search engine comprises: displaying the search engine list, the search engine list comprising the candidate search engines; the method further comprises: obtaining a first application identifier of the first application and a search engine distribution table, the search engine distribution table being configured for representing distribution of switching from the first application to different candidate search engines for searching by users when using the first application; and generating the search engine list based on the first application identifier and the search engine distribution table. (Par [0463-0464], “Typically, media content providers providing media content over IP networks make use of Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) 1100, third party distributed computer systems that cache copies of the media content at a plurality of points in the network so that a media content client can access a relatively local copy in preference to one directly from the media content provider.” Par [0741-0752], “feedback messages/icons must be displayed for the following scenarios:..”, par [0930-0931], “The user is able to select one or more filters which will be used in conjunction to return the search results” and par [2269], “…considered by the search engine indexer” See Figures 85-86)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Hunter specifically inferring using a trigger operation into the method of OMOIGUI to take advantage on requesting the respective information regarding to a specific search. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement providing an instruction to generate results.
As per Claim 13, the rejection of Claim 10 is incorporated and further Hunter discloses: wherein the search engine distribution table comprises a manually configured search engine distribution table; and the method further comprises: obtaining a first sample application identifier of a first sample application, and manually configured candidate sample search engine identifiers corresponding to the first sample application identifier; (Par [1679-1680], “The placeholders in some templates may be replaced with multiple terms separated by Boolean operators. The Valid Operators column of the filter tables for each service indicates which operators may be used with each filter.” URLs configurated and represented according to filter.)
and generating the manually configured search engine distribution table based on the first sample application identifier and the candidate sample search engine identifiers, the manually configured search engine distribution table being configured for representing distribution of switching from the first sample application to different candidate sample search engines for searching by users when using the first sample application. (Par [0084-0085], “Preferably, the means for providing configuration settings comprising storage means, adapted to store a configuration settings look-up table, the look-up table including data relating said data communications network to the configuration settings.” And Figures 85-86, configuration table could be done manually, see par [0541], “4. STAGIS is not currently able to publish TV-Anytime Service Information Fragments at all, so this reference data needs to be managed manually by MIPS in the short term.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Hunter specifically inferring using a trigger operation into the method of OMOIGUI to take advantage on requesting the respective information regarding to a specific search. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement providing an instruction to generate results.
As per Claim 14, the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated and further Hunter discloses: further comprising: configuring uniform resource locator information for each candidate search engine, the uniform resource locator information being configured for pointing to a search result obtained through searching for the search term on the corresponding candidate search engine. (Par [0463-0464], “Typically, media content providers providing media content over IP networks make use of Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) 1100, third party distributed computer systems that cache copies of the media content at a plurality of points in the network so that a media content client can access a relatively local copy in preference to one directly from the media content provider.” par [0930-0931], “The user is able to select one or more filters which will be used in conjunction to return the search results” and par [2269], “…considered by the search engine indexer” see Figures 85-86)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Hunter specifically inferring using a trigger operation into the method of OMOIGUI to take advantage on requesting the respective information regarding to a specific search. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement providing an instruction to generate results.
As per Claims 17-20, being the computer device and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims corresponding to the system claims 1-3 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection of the rejections of Claims 1-3 and further Kollenkark discloses: (Col. 8, lines 65-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claim 11-12 and 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Abelow; Daniel H. (US-20120069131-A1) relates to alternate reality with virtual and temporal related devices.
Almohizea; Saad (US-20170024424-A1), relates to The user interface then generally passes the search term to the search engine which searches for various items related to the search term. Preferably, the user interface sends the search term to the search engine in real-time (for example, sending a current version of the search term to the search engine module every 0.1 seconds) while the user is typing the search term, so that the search engine can provide suggested search terms to the user while the user is still typing the search term, and to continuously refine the search while the search term is being typed.
Orkin; Kenneth (US-20190377729-A1), relates to generating, with a processor, a graphical user interface including at least one selectable option and at least one untitled search break; generating, with a processor and on the graphical user interface, in response to actuation of a second selectable option of the at least one selectable option, at least one titled search break and a prompt to a user to make at least one selection; and generating, with a processor and on another graphical user interface,
Connolly; Sean M. (US-8650191-B2), relates to automatically evaluating the accessed one or more pages against one or more optimization tests based on one or more search terms, and provides one or more tools that guide and prompt the user for user input that is used by the analyzer to directly edit content of the website to improve the visibility of the website to internet search engines.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3158. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/ANGELICA RUIZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 March 7, 2026