DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (US 2018/0032577 A1, Applicant’s submitted IDS filed 3/10/2025), hereinafter “Kobayashi”.
As per claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a document search system comprising: a processor; a storage apparatus, wherein:
“the storage apparatus stores a document search database indicating content hierarchical structure of one or more documents” at [0018]-[0021] and Figs. 1, 2;
(Kobayashi teaches the structured document data 26 has plurality contents in a hierarchical relationship)
“the processor is configured to: receive a search keywords input from a user” at [0022]-[0024];
(Kobayashi teaches receiving search word such as “deposit” and “ordinary deposit”, which are inputted by a user via an input/output device)
“search the document search database for items matching the search keyword” at [0035];
(Kobayashi teaches executing a search on the structured document data 26 for items matching the search keyword)
“create a content hierarchical structure based on a plurality of items matching the search keyword in the search and present the content hierarchical structure to the user” at [0036]-[0038] and Figs 5-6;
(Kobayashi teaches outputting the content 30 obtained by the search in the format of a subtree (i.e., “content hierarchical structure”), which includes contents group 34 correspond to items matching the search keyword)
“determine a result item to be presented to the user from the plurality of items by sequentially selecting items from a higher hierarchy to a lower hierarchy according to selection” at [0037]-[0038] and Figs. 5-7;
(Kobayashi teaches determining a result item to be presented to the user by sequentially selecting items from a higher hierarchy (e.g., content 30B including “deposit” as a search word) to a lower hierarchy (e.g., content 30C including “ordinary deposit”, and content 30D at a hierarchy level lower than that of the content 30C))
“wherein the selection in at least one hierarchy follows selection by the user from a plurality of option items presented to the user” at [0045]-[0049] and Fig. 10.
(Kobayashi teaches as illustrated in Fig. 10, a deposit button corresponding to “deposit” which is a search word at the highest hierarchical level is displayed on the search result display screen. When the deposit button is designated by the user via the input device, a corresponding portion of the content 30 including “ordinary deposit” is displayed)
As per claim 2, Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: “present the plurality of option items to the user in each hierarchy until the number of item options become one; and select one from the plurality of option items according to the selection by the user” at [0045]-[0049] and Fig. 10.
As per claim 3, Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to “include, in the presenting of the plurality of option items to the user, general terms converted from technical term in the plurality of option items by using a synonym dictionary” at [0024], [0045]-[0049] and Fig. 10.
As per claim 4, Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to “include both the technical terms and the general terms in the presenting of the plurality of option items to the user” at [0024], [0046]-[0049] and Fig. 10.
As per claim 5, Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to “absorb a notation deviation between a technical term and a general term by using a synonym dictionary in the searching for the items matching the search keyword” at [0024].
As per claim 6, Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to “present, to the user, a summary based on the result item and a body of an item in a lower hierarchy of the result item” at [0045]-[0049] and Fig. 10.
As per claim 7, Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein “the storage apparatus stores configuration information of an apparatus used by the user, and the processor is configured to: search for information related to each of the plurality of option items with the configuration information in the selecting from the plurality of option items in the hierarchy; and cause the user to select one option item based on the information related to each of the plurality of option items in the configuration information or present an option item recommended to the user” at [0021]-[0029].
Claim 8 recites similar limitations as in claim 1 and is therefore rejected by the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully traverses Applicant’s arguments.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argued that “Kobayashi does not disclose “create a content hierarchical structure based on a plurality of items matching the search keyword in the search and present the content hierarchical structure to the user”. On the contrary, Kobayashi teaches at [0036]-[0037] and Fig. 5 that “the output unit 20 outputs a content group 34 obtained by the search by the execution unit 18 to the storage unit 22 in the format of a subtree”, wherein “a subtree” corresponds to the claimed “a content hierarchical structure”. Kobayashi further teaches “the content group 34 includes a content 30B including “deposit” as a search word, a content 30C including “ordinary deposit,” and a content 30D at a hierarchical level lower than that of content 20C. Kobayashi therefore teaches the “content hierarchical structure based on a plurality of items matching the search keyword in the search” as required by the claim.
Applicant further argued that Kobayashi does not teach “determine a result item to be presented to the user from the plurality of items by sequentially selecting items from a higher hierarchy to a lower hierarchy according to selections, wherein the selection in at least one hierarchy follows selection by the user from a plurality of options items presented to the user”. On the contrary, Kobayashi teaches at [0046]-[0047] and Fig. 10 the steps of presenting a result item to the user by sequentially selecting item from a higher hierarchy, e.g., “a deposit button corresponding to “deposit” which is a search word at the highest hierarchical level”, follow by selecting of the “ordinary deposit” button at a lower hierarchical level. The result item 56 is then presented to the user in response to the sequential selections.
PNG
media_image1.png
414
829
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In light of the foregoing arguments, the 35 U.S.C 102 rejection is hereby sustained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH B PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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 (571)272-4098. 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.
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
February 12, 2026