DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the Instant Application.
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19 are rejected (Final Rejection).
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are objected to.
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 .
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12, 1 and 6 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,265,582. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the Instant Application are broad and describe the subject matter of U.S. Patent No. 12,265,582. The claim language corresponds as noted below.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,265,582
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a search query in a first query modality at a search engine; the first query modality corresponding to a first form of input used to represent the search query to the search engine;
identifying one or more categories for the search query;
determining to recommend use of a second query modality based on a comparison of a first performance of the one or more categories in historical searches in the first query modality and a second performance of the one or more categories in historical searches in the second query modality; the second query modality corresponding to a second form of input used to represent a second search query to the search engine, wherein the second form of input is different than the first form of input; and
and
providing a recommendation to use the second query modality to perform a search at the search engine.
12. A computer implemented method for providing a query modality recommendation, the method comprising:
receiving a search query in a first query modality at a search engine;
identifying one or more dominant categories associated with search results for the search query;
determining a performance of the one or more dominant categories for the first query modality and a second query modality based on a first distribution of categories associated with historical search queries in the first query modality and a second distribution of categories associated with historical search queries in the second query modality, the first query modality being a different form of a search query than the second query modality, wherein the historical search queries in the second query modality are associated with a second set of search results for an item associated with the search query that was purchased;
based on the performance of the one or more dominant categories for the first query modality and the second query modality, causing a recommendation to use the second query modality to be displayed; and receiving a second search query in the second query modality.
8. One or more computer storage media storing computer-readable instructions that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving a search query in a first query modality at a search engine, the first query modality corresponding to a first form of input used to represent the search query to the search engine;
identifying one or more categories for the search query;
determining to recommend use of a second query modality based on a comparison of a first performance of the one or more categories in historical searches in the first query modality and a second performance of the one or more categories in historical searches in the second query modality; the second query modality corresponding to a second form of input used to represent a second search query to the search engine, wherein the second form of input is different than the first form of input; and
providing a recommendation to use the second query modality to perform a search at the search engine.
1. One or more non-transitory computer storage media storing computer-readable instructions that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving a search query in a first query modality at a search engine;
identifying one or more dominant categories associated with search results for the search query;
determining a performance of the one or more dominant categories for the first query modality and a second query modality based on a first distribution of categories associated with historical search queries in the first query modality and a second distribution of categories associated with historical search queries in the second query modality, the first query modality being a different form of a search query than the second query modality, wherein the historical search queries in the second query modality are associated with a second set of search results for an item associated with the search query that was purchased; based on the performance of the one or more dominant categories for the first query modality and the second query modality, causing a recommendation to use the second query modality to be displayed; and receiving a second search query in the second query modality.
15. A computer system comprising: at least one processor; and one or more computer storage media storing computer-readable instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving a search query in a first query modality at a search engine, the first query modality corresponding to a first form of input used to represent the search query to the search engine;
identifying one or more categories for the search query;
determining to recommend use of a second query modality based on a comparison of a first performance of the one or more categories in historical searches in the first query modality and a second performance of the one or more categories in historical searches in the second query modality; the second query modality corresponding to a second form of input used to represent a second search query to the search engine, wherein the second form of input is different than the first form of input; and
providing a recommendation to use the second query modality to perform a search at the search engine..
6. A system for providing a query modality recommendation, the system comprising: at least one processor; and one or more computer storage media storing computer-readable instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving a search query in a first query modality at a search engine;
determining one or more categories associated with search results for the search query; determining to recommend use of a second query modality based on the one or more categories, the first query modality being a different form of a search query than the second query modality;
and providing a recommendation to use the second query modality, instead of the first query modality, for another search query, wherein determining to recommend use of the second query modality comprises:
determining a first search performance of the one or more categories for the first query modality based on a frequency in which the one or more categories are included in search results of historical queries for the search query in the first query modality; determining a second search performance of the one or more categories for the second query modality based on the frequency in which the one or more categories are included in search results of historical queries for the search query in the second query modality; and determining to recommend use of the second query modality based on the second search performance being better than the first search performance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Gokturk et al. (“Gokturk”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0212899 (cited in the previous Office Action).
As per claim 1, Gokturk discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a search query in a first query modality at a search engine, the first query modality corresponding to a first form of input used to represent the search query to the search engine ([0234]-[0236] wherein an image search is performed using a first query modality, an image search); identifying one or more categories for the search query ([0061] and [0072] wherein the dominant category for results is determined to be “shoes” and for a particular query word or term, a particular classification is identified, where for each particular classification, dominant categories of search results are identified based on categories typically associated with content items in the results, such dominant categories called “buzzwords”);
determining to recommend use of a second query modality based on a comparison of a first performance of the one or more categories in historical searches in the first query modality and a second performance of the one or more categories in historical searches in the second query modality, the second query modality corresponding to a second form of input used to represent a second search query to the search engine, wherein the second form of input is different than the first form of input ([0241] wherein based on the category of search being shoes, dominant categories of results (buzzwords) are determined for shoes to be recommended as a “drill down” text query (wherein a text query is different than the original image search), based on feedback (historical searches) wherein buzzwords associated with shoes may be different kinds of shoe toe styles would include buzzwords such as split toe, round toe, square toe, open toe, or pointed toe as described in [0140]); and providing a recommendation to use the second query modality to perform a search at the search engine ([0241] wherein a text search recommendation is provided to the user as a pre-formulated text query presented in a side panel as described in [0212]).
As per claim 2, Gokturk discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more categories for the search query are identified based on categories of search results for the search query ([0061] wherein the category, such as shoes, is based on a search for vector features in the image, the result being shoes).
As per claim 8, claim 8 is the program product that performs the method of claim 1 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 9, claim 9 is the program product that performs the method of claim 2 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 15, Gokturk discloses a computer system comprising: at least one processor ([0040]); and one or more computer storage media storing computer-readable instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations of claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning as claim 1.
As per claim 16, claim 16 is the system that performs the method of claim 2 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
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.
Claims 3-6, 10-13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gokturk in view of White et al. (“White”), United States Patent Application No. 2010/0057675.
As per claim 3, Gokturk discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the first performance of the one or more categories is based on a first distribution of a plurality of categories in the historical searches in the first query modality; and wherein the second performance of the one or more categories is based on a second distribution of the plurality of categories in the historical searches in the second query modality. However, White teaches wherein the first performance of the one or more categories is based on a first distribution of a plurality of categories in the historical searches in the first query modality; and wherein the second performance of the one or more categories is based on a second distribution of the plurality of categories in the historical searches in the second query modality ([0065] wherein the performance is based on the distribution of categories since each search modality has a different category, and the performance is better based on the category of the query matching the category of the search modality).
Both Gokturk and White describe categorizing queries. One could apply distribution of result based categorizing as in White with the search modality recommendation process in Gokturk to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of recommending query modality as in Gokturk with the category assigned by distribution of results as in White in order to provide more specialized results based on the type of result requested.
As per claim 4, note the rejection of claim 3where Gokturk and White are combined. The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 3. White further teaches wherein the first distribution of the plurality of categories is based on categories of a first set of search results from the historical searches in the first query modality; and wherein the second distribution of the plurality of categories is based on categories of a second set of search results from the historical searches in the second query modality ([0065] wherein each search modality has a distribution of category in the results that match their specialized subject matter) .
As per claim 5, note the rejection of claim 3 where Gokturk and White are combined. The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4. White further teaches wherein the first set of search results and the second set of search results comprise search results associated with a type of user interaction, wherein the type of user interaction comprises one or more of selected from the following: a purchase, a click, a view-time, and a search refinement ([0053] wherein the search results are associated with a certain type of user interaction, which can be considered “a click” which is recited as browsing history, browsing the result of a click).
As per claim 6, note the rejection of claim 3 where Gokturk and White are combined. The combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 3. White further teaches wherein the comparison of the first performance of the one or more categories to the second performance of the one or more categories comprises: comparing the first distribution to the second distribution ([0065] wherein the distribution of categories is compared to the second distribution of categories, to find the one requested by the searcher).
As per claim 10, claim 10 is the program product that performs the method of claim 3 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 11, claim 11 is the program product that performs the method of claim 4 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 12, claim 12 is the program product that performs the method of claim 5 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 13, claim 13 is the program product that performs the method of claim 6 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 17, claim 17 is the system that performs the method of claim 3 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 18, claim 18 is the system that performs the method of claim 4 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 19, claim 19 is the system that performs the method of claim 5 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The reasons for indicating allowable subject matter was included in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM -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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571) 272-4085. 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.
/KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights