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 .
Priority
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 Application No. CN202310506064.8, filed on 5/06/2023.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are currently pending in the present application. Claim 8 is currently cancelled.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al. (US PGPUB No. 2016/0292296; Pub. Date: Oct. 6, 2016) in view of Otsuhata (US PGPUB No. 2022/0091705; Pub. Date: Mar. 24, 2022).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Murphy discloses a method for improving display of page tools, comprising: obtaining a search result comprising content that matches search information and a plurality of tool buttons associated with at least one of the search information or the search result in response to receiving the search information via a search input box displayed on a graphical user interface, wherein the content is different from the plurality of tool buttons, See FIG. 2A & paragraph [0061], (Disclosing a search interface illustrated in FIG. 2A as comprising a plurality of search results 133a, 133b, 133c which include increase context buttons 203a-203c and decrease context buttons 206a, 206c that correspond to the rendered search results 133a-133c.) See FIG. 4 & Paragraph [0076], (FIG. 4 illustrates the operation of search client 156 which includes step 403 of obtaining a search term from a user and transmitting the search term to a search engine at step 406 and obtaining search results from a search processor at step 409, i.e. a method for improving display of page tools, comprising: obtaining a search result comprising content that matches search information (e.g. step 409) and a plurality of tool buttons associated with at least one of the search information or the search result (e.g. FIG. 2A illustrates context buttons displayed in associated with individual search results) in response to receiving the search information via a search input box displayed on a graphical user interface (e.g. Note [0038] wherein a user inputs a search term using a user interface for search client 156), wherein the content is different from the plurality of tool buttons (e.g. search results are displayed alongside the context button controls in the GUI ).)
and displaying a tool consumption page corresponding to a tool after one of the plurality of tool buttons is triggered on the search result page without receiving additional search information corresponding to the tool via the search input box. See Paragraph [0062]-[0063], (A user may interact with a context button 203a-203c, 206a-206c which causes search client 156 to transmit a request to generate and encode an updated search result 133a-133c that includes additional information from a corresponding document file 146, i.e. and displaying a tool consumption page corresponding to a tool (e.g. the search interface is updated to reflect execution/application of the context button tool) after one of the plurality of tool buttons is triggered on the search result page (e.g. users may select context buttons such as by clicking on said buttons in the GUI) without receiving additional search information corresponding to the tool via the search input box (e.g. the context buttons are separate from the text search elements used to input search queries).)
Murphy does not disclose the step wherein the plurality of tool buttons are determined based on at least one mounting dimension, and wherein the at least one mounting dimension comprises a content dimension indicating a correlation between the plurality of tool buttons and at least one of the search information or the search result;
simultaneously displaying the search result and the plurality of tool buttons in a search result page on the graphical user interface;
Otsuhata discloses the step wherein the plurality of tool buttons are determined based on at least one mounting dimension, and wherein the at least one mounting dimension comprises a content dimension indicating a correlation between the plurality of tool buttons and at least one of the search information or the search result; See Paragraphs [0063]-[0066], (Disclosing a system for acquiring menu screen configuration information stored in an electronic device. Configuration file storage 241 stores menu screen configuration information for configuring a customized screen including only setting items set in a wireless device 200, i.e. wherein the plurality of tool buttons (e.g. the setting items ) are determined based on at least one mounting dimension (e.g. the menu screen configuration information). Control unit 250 comprises search unit 252 configured to search for information stored in storage unit 241 for menu screen configuration information to determine search results of menu screen configuration information for presentation at an information processing device 100, i.e. and wherein the at least one mounting dimension comprises a content dimension indicating a correlation between the plurality of tool buttons and at least one of the search information or the search result (e.g. Note [0079] wherein menu screen configuration information relates to a customized screen in which buttons are placed. Search unit 252 searches for menu screen configuration information to present a desired arrangement of buttons at a corresponding device);)
simultaneously displaying the search result and the plurality of tool buttons in a search result page on the graphical user interface; See FIG. 2 & Paragraph [0039], (FIG. 2 illustrates a graphical user interface comprising two areas AR1 and AR2 wherein AR1 comprises a plurality of setting items that may be searched. AR2 comprises a plurality of setting item areas AR21, AR22, AR23, i.e. simultaneously displaying the search result and the plurality of tool buttons in a search result page on the graphical user interface;)
Murphy and Otsuhata are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, search system optimization. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Murphy to include the tool addition menu as disclosed by Otsuhata for allowing display of search items and setting items while also including functionality for placing additional tools in a designated tool bar. Paragraph [0090] of Otsuhata discloses that the method of providing a customized screen including only required items allows users to more easily find buttons for changing settings, which represents an improvement in user experience and operability.
Regarding independent claim 9,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of independent claim 1 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding independent claim 10,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of independent claim 1 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 2, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Otsuhata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maiti et al. (US PGPUB No. 2019/0340281; Pub. Date: Nov. 7, 2019).
Regarding dependent claim 2,
As discussed above with claim 1, Murphy-Otsuhata discloses all of the limitations.
Murphy-Otsuhata does not disclose the step wherein the mounting dimension is determined according to: determining at least one mounting dimension corresponding to the search result according to a content type of search content in the search result and an association relationship between a preset content type and the mounting dimension.
Maiti discloses the step wherein the mounting dimension is determined according to: determining at least one mounting dimension corresponding to the search result according to a content type of search content in the search result and an association relationship between a preset content type and the mounting dimension. See Paragraph [0109], (Disclosing a search system configured to activate a subset of widgets that satisfy a condition based on the search results and determining a view for each activated widget. The system comprises a widget content rules system 710 configured to tailor each widget of a graphical user interface based on a type of search results, i.e. determining at least one mounting dimension corresponding to the search result according to a content type of search content in the search result (e.g. Note [0107] wherein widget content rules system 710 may determine the number of search results for each type of search results and assigns a particular widget that best fits the type and number of search results for each type of search results) and an association relationship between a preset content type and the mounting dimension (e.g. the selected widgets are tailored to provide an optimal display/presentation experience).)
Murphy, Otsuhata and Maiti are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, graphical user interface optimization. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Murphy-Otsuhata to include the method of tailoring widget selections based on search result characteristics as disclosed by Maiti. Paragraph [0088] of Maiti discloses that the mapping system may automatically determine a manner in which search results are displayed on the display interface in order to optimize the presentation of search results, which represents an improvement in the user experience.
Regarding dependent claim 11,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 2 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 17,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 2 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Otsuhata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Almecija et al. (US PGPUB No. 2018/0365025; Pub. Date: Dec. 20, 2018).
Regarding dependent claim 3,
As discussed above with claim 1, Murphy-Otsuhata discloses all of the limitations.
Murphy-Otsuhata does not disclose the step wherein the mounting dimension comprises a daily consumption dimension, and the tool button in the daily consumption dimension is determined according to: selecting a first tool button from a preset tool button according to a correlation between a preset tool corresponding to each preset tool button and at least one selected from the group consisting of the search information and the search result; and determining the tool button from the first tool button according to a usage amount of the preset tool corresponding to each first tool button within a preset time period.
Almecija discloses the step wherein the mounting dimension comprises a daily consumption dimension, See Paragraph [0067], (Dynamic shortcuts comprise dynamic toolbars of buttons including UI tools that are most likely to be used by a user to interact with a displayed GUI. Note [0087] wherein historical usage factors are provided to a neural network as input for determining a user's UI preferences, i.e. wherein the mounting dimension comprises a daily consumption dimension (e.g. the historical usage factors associated with a user).)
and the tool button in the daily consumption dimension is determined according to: selecting a first tool button from a preset tool button according to a correlation between a preset tool corresponding to each preset tool button and at least one selected from the group consisting of the search information and the search result; See Paragraph [0087], (The system may predict user actions on a graphical user interface based on input factors including current usage of the user interface as well as historical usage factors including what tasks a user has performed, i.e. the tool button in the daily consumption dimension is determined according to: selecting a first tool button from a preset tool button according to a correlation between a preset tool corresponding to each preset tool button (e.g. the system generates predictions based on current and previous usage of a user interface) and at least the search information (e.g. the user's interactions with a GUI of a software application.)
The examiner notes that while Almecija is not explicitly directed to a search system, the method may be directed to any type of software application that a user may interact with to accomplish tasks. Murphy is directed to a software application for searching products in a product database as discussed with regard to claim 1 above and therefore includes "search information".
and determining the tool button from the first tool button according to a usage amount of the preset tool corresponding to each first tool button within a preset time period. See Paragraph [0087], (The system may predict user actions on a graphical user interface based on input factors including current usage of the user interface as well as historical usage factors including what tasks a user has performed, i.e. determining the tool button from the first tool button according to a usage amount of the preset tool corresponding to each first tool button within a preset time period (e.g. historical usage factors include what tasks a user has performed. Note [0043] wherein the system may detect intervals between button clicks and speed of mouse travel to determine usage patterns).)
Murphy, Otsuhata and Almecija are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, graphical user interface optimization. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Murphy-Otsuhata to include the method of dynamically arranging tools for a user as disclosed by Almecija. Paragraph [0108] of Almecija discloses that the system may improve computer technology by reducing user interface load times, making more efficient usage of UI assets, minimizing CPU cycles to operate a user interface, saving system power, and may offload UI management to remote servers on the Internet.
Regarding dependent claim 12,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 3 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 18,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 3 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Otsuhata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pellow et al. (US PGPUB No. 2020/0142945; Pub. Date: May 7, 2020) and Maiti et al. (US PGPUB No. 2019/0340281; Pub. Date: Nov. 7, 2019).
Regarding dependent claim 4,
As discussed above with claim 1, Murphy-Otsuhata discloses all of the limitations.
Pellow further discloses the step of selecting a third tool button matching a historical search behavior from the second tool button according to each historical search behavior related to the search information and obtained upon authorization; See Paragraph [0116], (FIG. 12 depicts a graphical user interface including a query tool 1204 including controls for running an automated query inquiry including a "previous button" 1206 which backs up to a previous query, i.e. selecting a third tool button matching a historical search behavior from the second tool button according to each historical search behavior related to the search information and obtained upon authorization (e.g. Note [0148] wherein a user may access search diagnostic tools based on authorization information);
Pellow-Almecija does not disclose the step wherein the mounting dimension comprises a content dimension,
and the tool button in the content dimension is determined according to: selecting a second tool button from a preset tool button according to a correlation between a preset tool corresponding to each preset tool button and search content in the search result;
determining target information flow content with views greater than a preset threshold according to the views of each piece of information flow content within a preset time period;
and selecting the tool button from the third tool button according to a correlation between each third tool button and the target information flow content.
Maiti discloses the step wherein the mounting dimension comprises a content dimension, See Paragraph [0109], (Disclosing a search system configured to activate a subset of widgets that satisfy a condition based on the search results and determining a view for each activated widget. The system comprises a widget content rules system 710 configured to tailor each widget of a graphical user interface based on a type of search results, i.e. wherein the mounting dimension comprises a content dimension (e.g. a type of search result).)
and the tool button in the content dimension is determined according to: selecting a second tool button from a preset tool button according to a correlation between a preset tool corresponding to each preset tool button and search content in the search result; See Paragraph [0108], (Widget content rules system 710 may tailor the manner in which search results are displayed within widgets that are to be activated based on a number of search results of different types. Note [0101] wherein widgets may include buttons, check boxes, containers, labels, scroll bars, menu bars, toolbars, ribbons, graphs, windows, and a variety of other features that may be considered necessary or desirable to accurately and appropriately display the search results, i.e. the tool button in the content dimension is determined according to: selecting a second tool button from a preset tool button according to a correlation between a preset tool corresponding to each preset tool button and search content in the search result (e.g. the system may determine a particular widget, which may be embodied as a button, based on characteristics of a search result/search result set based on a search result type and number of search results).)
determining target information flow content with views greater than a preset threshold according to the views of each piece of information flow content within a preset time period; See FIG. 9 & Paragraph [0119], (FIG. 9 illustrates method 900 comprising step 910 wherein widget content rules system 710 determines whether a number of search results of a first type is greater than a first threshold, i.e. determining target information flow content with views greater than a preset threshold according to the views of each piece of information flow content within a preset time period (e.g. the search results are retrieved at a current time in response to a submitted user query).)
The examiner is interpreting the term "view" within the context of the claim to refer to a piece of information such as a search result. The method of Maiti may determine whether an amount of search results of a given type exceed a threshold number, i.e. information flow content with views greater than a preset threshold).)
and selecting the tool button from the third tool button according to a correlation between each third tool button and the target information flow content. See FIG. 9, (Method 900 comprises steps 915, 930 and 935 of selecting different widgets based on determinations made relating to at least first and second thresholds, i.e. selecting the tool button (e.g. the system selects a widget type based on determinations made during method 900. Note [0101] wherein widgets may include buttons, check boxes, containers, labels, scroll bars, menu bars, toolbars, ribbons, graphs, windows, and a variety of other features that may be considered necessary or desirable to accurately and appropriately display the search results.) from the third tool button according to a correlation between each third tool button and the target information flow content (e.g. the widget is selected based on characteristics of search results including a number of search results for each type of a plurality of types of search results).)
Pellow, Almecija and Maiti are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, graphical user interface optimization. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Pellow-Almecija to include the method of tailoring widget selections based on search result characteristics as disclosed by Maiti. Paragraph [0088] of Maiti discloses that the mapping system may automatically determine a manner in which search results are displayed on the display interface in order to optimize the presentation of search results, which represents an improvement in the user experience.
Regarding dependent claim 13,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 4 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 19,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 4 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5-7, 14-16 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Otsuhata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pellow et al. (US PGPUB No. 2020/0142945; Pub. Date: May 7, 2020).
Regarding dependent claim 5,
As discussed above with claim 1, Murphy-Otsuhata discloses all of the limitations.
Murphy-Otsuhata does not disclose the step wherein the mounting dimension comprises a functional dimension, and the tool button in the functional dimension is determined according to: selecting a fourth tool button from a preset tool button according to a search time period when the search information is input and according to a pre-established mapping relationship between a time period and a tool button; and selecting a tool button with a preset function from the fourth tool button according to a function of a preset tool corresponding to each fourth tool button.
Pellow discloses the step wherein the mounting dimension comprises a functional dimension, See Paragraph [0124], (A user may submit an input indicating the start of an automated query inquiry, i.e. wherein the mounting dimension comprises a functional dimension (e.g. the system displays query tool 1204 in response to a user request for an automated query inquiry wherein the automated query inquiry and its associated information represent a functional dimension).)
and the tool button in the functional dimension is determined according to: selecting a fourth tool button from a preset tool button according to a search time period when the search information is input and according to a pre-established mapping relationship between a time period and a tool button; See Paragraph [0117], (Controls for running an automated query allow a user to perform specific queries as well as reverse, pause or proceed with playback for any of the queries associated with query tool 1204, i.e. the tool button in the functional dimension (e.g. tool elements associated with query tool 1204) is determined according to: selecting a fourth tool button from a preset tool button according to a search time period when the search information is input (e.g. previous queries are executed at a previous time. The system may play back previously executed queries based on user interactions with the query tool control inputs) and according to a pre-established mapping relationship between a time period and a tool button (e.g. play button 1210 is associated with a current time period, previous button 1206 is associated with executing previous queries).)
and selecting a tool button with a preset function from the fourth tool button according to a function of a preset tool corresponding to each fourth tool button. See Paragraph [0117], (Query tool 1204 includes a plurality of controls that allow a user to control which queries are executed and when via the plurality of interface buttons of the query tool as in FIG. 12, i.e. selecting a tool button with a preset function from the fourth tool button according to a function of a preset tool corresponding to each fourth tool button (e.g. any of the buttons of query tool 1204 have an associated function).)
Murphy, Otsuhata and Pellow are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, graphical user interface optimization. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Murphy-Otsuhata to include the method of dynamically arranging tools for a user as disclosed by Pellow. Paragraphs [0021] & [0038] of Pellow discloses that the system facilitates and improves searches designed to find content across multiple sources such as by allowing a search query to be modified to rank/re-rank search results.
Regarding dependent claim 6,
As discussed above with claim 1, Murphy-Otsuhata discloses all of the limitations.
Murphy-Otsuhata does not disclose the step wherein after the displaying the search result and the plurality of tool buttons in a search result page, the method further comprises: in response to triggering a first tool button of the tool buttons, displaying a tool consumption page of a tool corresponding to the first tool button, and displaying an associated tool button associated with the tool at a preset position of the tool consumption page, wherein the associated tool button is determined according to at least one selected from the group consisting of a tool category and a function of the tool.
Pellow discloses the step wherein after the displaying the search result and the plurality of tool buttons in a search result page, the method further comprises: in response to triggering a first tool button of the tool buttons, displaying a tool consumption page of a tool corresponding to the first tool button, See FIG. 11, Paragraphs [0110] & [0112], (FIG. 11 illustrates the method comprising step 1112 of receiving an indication of modification to the search query such as via a user utilizing a tool of the search diagnostic tools. Steps 1114-1116 comprise generating and transmitting a modified search query to the search engine, which may return information relating to the modified search query, i.e. in response to triggering a first tool button of the tool buttons, displaying a tool consumption page of a tool corresponding to the first tool button (e.g. the displayed modified search results are generated based on a user interaction with a search diagnostic tool).)
and displaying an associated tool button associated with the tool at a preset position of the tool consumption page, See FIG. 10, (FIG. 10 illustrates a graphical user interface including a plurality of search results and search diagnostic tool icons. Each product is presented as having four search diagnostic tool icons arranged vertically on the left side of the thumbnail representing each product, i.e. displaying an associated tool button associated with the tool at a preset position of the tool consumption page)
wherein the associated tool button is determined according to at least one selected from the group consisting of a tool category and a function of the tool. See FIG. 10 & Paragraph [0099], (FIG. 10 illustrates a graphical user interface presenting an explain dialogue 1006 wherein the explanation tool is represented by a "?" icon, i.e. wherein the associated tool button is determined according to at least a function of the tool.)
Murphy, Otsuhata and Pellow are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, graphical user interface optimization. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Murphy-Otsuhata to include the method of dynamically arranging tools for a user as disclosed by Pellow. Paragraphs [0021] & [0038] of Pellow discloses that the system facilitates and improves searches designed to find content across multiple sources such as by allowing a search query to be modified to rank/re-rank search results.
Regarding dependent claim 7,
As discussed above with claim 1, Murphy-Otsuhata discloses all of the limitations.
Murphy-Otsuhata does not disclose the step wherein the displaying the search result and the plurality of tool buttons in a search result page comprises: displaying the search result and the tool buttons in a result display area of the search result page; or displaying the search result in a result display area of the search result page, and displaying a tool entrance corresponding to each of the tool buttons in a recommendation area for displaying recommended search terms in the search result page, wherein the tool entrance is used to replace the recommended search terms displayed in the recommendation area.
Pellow discloses the step wherein the displaying the search result and the plurality of tool buttons in a search result page comprises: displaying the search result and the tool buttons in a result display area of the search result page; or displaying the search result in a result display area of the search result page, and displaying a tool entrance corresponding to each of the tool buttons in a recommendation area for displaying recommended search terms in the search result page, wherein the tool entrance is used to replace the recommended search terms displayed in the recommendation area. See FIG. 11, Paragraphs [0110] & [0112], (FIG. 11 illustrates the method comprising step 1112 of receiving an indication of modification to the search query such as via a user utilizing a tool of the search diagnostic tools. Steps 1114-1116 comprise generating and transmitting a modified search query to the search engine, which may return information relating to the modified search query, i.e. displaying the search result and the tool buttons in a result display area of the search result page; (e.g. FIG. 10 illustrates a graphical user interface including an explain dialogue 1006 triggered by an explanation tool of the search diagnostic tools. Explain dialogue 1006 is displayed simultaneously with search results and search diagnostic tools.)
Murphy, Otsuhata and Pellow are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, graphical user interface optimization. It would have been obvious to anyone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Murphy-Otsuhata to include the method of dynamically arranging tools for a user as disclosed by Pellow. Paragraphs [0021] & [0038] of Pellow discloses that the system facilitates and improves searches designed to find content across multiple sources such as by allowing a search query to be modified to rank/re-rank search results.
Regarding dependent claim 14,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 5 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 15,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 6 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 16, The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 7 directed to a device or apparatus and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 20,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 5 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding dependent claim 21,
The claim is analogous to the subject matter of dependent claim 6 directed to a non-transitory, computer readable medium and is rejected under similar rationale.
Examiner’s Input
The following references were found to be relevant to the claimed invention but were not relied upon for any of the prior art rejections presented above:
Blackwell et al. (US PGPUB No. 2015/0058318; Pub. Date: Feb. 26, 2015)
Blackwell is directed to a system for controlling persistent search results and iterative searching. The system may present search results in a toolbar 110. See FIG. 5 & Paragraph [0047] wherein search results are described as being displayed alongside individual refinement options that may be used to manipulate a specific search result.
Blackwell is considered to be relevant to at least the following portion of independent claim 1:
obtaining a search result comprising content that matches search information and a plurality of tool buttons associated with at least one of the search information or the search result in response to receiving the search information via a search input box displayed on a graphical user interface, wherein the content is different from the plurality of tool buttons,
Jiang et al. (US PGPUB No. 2011/0302521; Pub. Date: Dec. 8, 2011)
Jiang is directed to a system for performing tasks and related tasks via tasklets. Paragraphs [0021]-[0022] describe the process where a user may access a tasklet having an associated context such as a result-specific context and may present users with result options within a tasklet that matches at least a portion of the user context. An example is provided where a user may submit a search query related to a movie currently playing in theaters. The system may display a tasklet interface displaying one or more result entities and options. FIG. 6 illustrates tasklet display area 620 which contains result entities 622, 623 indicating search results and functionality associated with the results “<Buy Tix>” and “<Showtimes>”.
Jiang is considered to be relevant to at least the following portion of independent claim 1:
obtaining a search result comprising content that matches search information and a plurality of tool buttons associated with at least one of the search information or the search result in response to receiving the search information via a search input box displayed on a graphical user interface, wherein the content is different from the plurality of tool buttons,
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 9-10 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.
Applicant’s amendments have modified the scope of the claimed invention, which necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fernando M Mari whose telephone number is (571)272-2498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/FMMV/Examiner, Art Unit 2159 /AMRESH SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights