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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/11/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is/are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are currently pending in the present application. Claim 8 is currently cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1,
Claim 1 recites the following limitation(s):
A method for displaying page tool, comprising: obtaining a search result matching search information and a plurality of target tool buttons associated with at least one selected from the group consisting of the search information and the search result in response to receiving the search information, wherein the plurality of target tool buttons are determined based on at least one mounting dimension; Which includes a process of determining a subset of items to include in a graphical user interface based on particular criteria. The term “determine” is considered to be an observation or evaluation which are considered concepts performed in the human mind. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art may, given a search results page, mentally determine which tools or functions would be useful for navigating or modifying the displayed search results. This may include determining that further filtering would be required if the page contains a large amount of search results.
The limitations, as drafted, comprise a process that, under its broadest, reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components e.g. tool buttons, a tool consumption page, etc. None of the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
These steps recite a mental process applied to the field of computer techniques.
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
and displaying the search result and the plurality of target tool buttons in a search result page, and displaying a tool consumption page corresponding to a target tool after the target tool button is triggered. which encompasses a step of mere data gathering & outputting (e.g. displaying search results and displaying a tool consumption page represent data outputting steps), which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions applied to a generic computer environment. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements, taken either alone or in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
and displaying the search result and the plurality of target tool buttons in a search result page, and displaying a tool consumption page corresponding to a target tool after the target tool button is triggered. Pellow et al. (US PGPUB No. 2020/0142945; Pub. Date: May 7, 2020) discloses the limitation at issue: See FIG. 11 & Paragraph [0109], (Step 1110 comprises rendering a user interface including the search diagnostic tools presented with the results for the search query. Search diagnostic tools may be presented next to, on top of, superimposed on, near, adjacent to and/or in conjunction with the search results, i.e. displaying the search result and the plurality of target tool buttons in a search result page (e.g. the user interface includes both search results and search diagnostic tools).) 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 a tool consumption page corresponding to a target tool after the target tool button is triggered (e.g. the modified search results are delivered to the requesting entity in response to the user interacting with a search diagnostic tool(s).)"
Therefore, the limitation may be recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions.
Based on the above, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 2,
Claim 2 depends upon Claim 1, as such claim 2 presents the same abstract idea of a mental process as identified in the discussion above.
Claim 2 recites the following additional limitation(s):
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. Which includes a process of determining a subset of items to include in a graphical user interface based on particular criteria. The term “determine” is considered to be an observation or evaluation which are considered concepts performed in the human mind. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art may determine a mounting condition used to determine which tools to deliver to a user based on observing the types of content delivered. This may include determining that playback controls are required to navigate a plurality of video-based search results or presenting zoom-in/zoom-out controls for navigating image-based search results.
Based on the above, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 3,
Claim 3 depends upon Claim 1, as such claim 3 presents the same abstract idea of a mental process as identified in the discussion above.
Claim 3 recites the following additional limitation(s):
wherein the mounting dimension comprises a daily consumption dimension, and the target 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; Which includes a process of determining a subset of items to include in a graphical user interface based on particular criteria. The term “determine” is considered to be an observation or evaluation which are considered concepts performed in the human mind. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art may determine frequently used tools or favored tools based on trends and patterns of use that indicate a preference for certain interactions. This may include determining that a user has previously ordered results in alphabetical order multiple time and may provide this functionality to the user in future operations based on the trend.
and determining the target 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. Which includes a process of determining a subset of items to include in a graphical user interface based on particular criteria. The term “determine” is considered to be an observation or evaluation which are considered concepts performed in the human mind. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art may determine frequently used tools or favored tools based on trends and patterns of use that indicate a preference for certain interactions. This may include determining that a user has previously ordered results in alphabetical order multiple time and may provide this functionality to the user in future operations based on the trend.
Based on the above, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 4,
Claim 4 depends upon Claim 1, as such claim 4 presents the same abstract idea of a mental process as identified in the discussion above.
Claim 4 recites the following additional limitation(s):
wherein the mounting dimension comprises a content dimension, and the target 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; Which includes a process of determining a subset of items to include in a graphical user interface based on a correlation described at a high degree of generality. The term “determine” is considered to be an observation or evaluation which are considered concepts performed in the human mind. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art may determine a relationship between a particular button and a set of search results based on the context of the search to determine a tool that is highly relevant to a set of search results. This may include providing a user with tools relating to filtering a set of items by price if the search results comprise purchasable products on an e-commerce platform.
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; Which includes a process of determining if a number of views exceeds a threshold. The term “determine” is considered to be an observation or evaluation which are considered concepts performed in the human mind. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art may determine that a number of views exceeds a particular number for a time interval based on mentally setting a threshold number and having access to a number of views.
These steps recite a mental process applied to the field of computer techniques.
Claim 4 recites the following additional elements:
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; which encompasses a step of mere data gathering & outputting (e.g. selecting a button based on matching criteria corresponds to data gathering), which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
and selecting the target tool button from the third tool button according to a correlation between each third tool button and the target information flow content. which encompasses a step of mere data gathering & outputting (e.g. selecting a button based on matching criteria corresponds to data gathering), which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements, taken either alone or in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
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; Pellow et al. (US PGPUB No. 2020/0142945; Pub. Date: May 7, 2020) discloses the limitation at issue: 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);)
and selecting the target tool button from the third tool button according to a correlation between each third tool button and the target information flow content. Maiti et al. (US PGPUB No. 2019/0340281; Pub. Date: Nov. 7, 2019) discloses the limitation at issue: 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 target 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).)
Therefore, the limitation may be recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions.
Based on the above, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 5,
Claim 5 depends upon Claim 1, as such claim 5 presents the same abstract idea of a mental process as identified in the discussion above.
Claim 5 recites the following additional limitation(s):
wherein the mounting dimension comprises a functional dimension, and the target 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; Which includes a process of determining a subset of items to include in a graphical user interface based on a correlation described at a high degree of generality. The term “determine” is considered to be an observation or evaluation which are considered concepts performed in the human mind. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art may simply determine that a particular tool button corresponds to a particular mapped relationship, such as by assessing that a filtering button corresponds to a filtering operation.
These steps recite a mental process applied to the field of computer techniques.
Claim 5 recites the following additional elements:
and selecting a target 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. which encompasses a step of mere data gathering & outputting (e.g. selecting a button based on matching criteria corresponds to data gathering), which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements, taken either alone or in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
and selecting a target 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 et al. (US PGPUB No. 2020/0142945; Pub. Date: May 7, 2020) discloses the limitation at issue: 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 target 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).)
Therefore, the limitation may be recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions.
Based on the above, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 6,
Claim 6 depends upon Claim 1, as such claim 6 presents the same abstract idea of a mental process as identified in the discussion above.
Claim 6 recites the following additional limitation(s):
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 target tool. Which includes a process of selecting a tool from a group based on criteria recited at a high degree of generality. The term “determine” is considered to be an observation or evaluation which are considered concepts performed in the human mind. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art may determine a subset of useful tools based on mentally determining which tools would be most useful to interact with a plurality of search results. This may include determining that ranking functionality would be useful in determining which search results are more relevant to an input query.
These steps recite a mental process applied to the field of computer techniques.
Claim 6 recites the following additional elements:
wherein after the displaying the search result and the plurality of target tool buttons in a search result page, the method further comprises: in response to triggering a first target tool button of the target tool buttons, displaying a tool consumption page of a target tool corresponding to the first target tool button, and displaying an associated tool button associated with the target tool at a preset position of the tool consumption page, which encompasses a step of mere data gathering & outputting (e.g. displaying search results and tool buttons comprises a step of data outputting), which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements, taken either alone or in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
wherein after the displaying the search result and the plurality of target tool buttons in a search result page, the method further comprises: in response to triggering a first target tool button of the target tool buttons, displaying a tool consumption page of a target tool corresponding to the first target tool button, and displaying an associated tool button associated with the target tool at a preset position of the tool consumption page, Pellow et al. (US PGPUB No. 2020/0142945; Pub. Date: May 7, 2020) discloses the limitation at issue: 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 target tool button of the target tool buttons, displaying a tool consumption page of a target tool corresponding to the first target tool button (e.g. the displayed modified search results are generated based on a user interaction with a search diagnostic tool).) 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 target tool at a preset position of the tool consumption page)
Therefore, the limitation may be recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions.
Based on the above, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claim 7,
Claim 7 depends upon Claim 1, as such claim 7 presents the same abstract idea of a mental process as identified in the discussion above.
Claim 7 recites the following additional limitation(s):
wherein the displaying the search result and the plurality of target tool buttons in a search result page comprises: displaying the search result and the target 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 target 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. which encompasses a step of mere data gathering & outputting (e.g. displaying search results is a step of data outputting), which represents insignificant extra-solution activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements, taken either alone or in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
wherein the displaying the search result and the plurality of target tool buttons in a search result page comprises: displaying the search result and the target 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 target 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 et al. (US PGPUB No. 2020/0142945; Pub. Date: May 7, 2020) discloses the limitation at issue: 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 target 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.)
Therefore, the limitation may be recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions.
Based on the above, the claim is not patent eligible.
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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 3, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 14-16, 18 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pellow et al. (US PGPUB No. 2020/0142945; Pub. Date: May 7, 2020) in view of Almecija et al. (US PGPUB No. 2018/0365025; Pub. Date: Dec. 20, 2018).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Pellow discloses a method for displaying page tool, comprising: obtaining a search result matching search information and a plurality of target tool buttons associated with at least one selected from the group consisting of the search information and the search result in response to receiving the search information, See FIG. 11, Paragraph [0106] & [0109], (Disclosing a system for presenting search diagnostic tools in concert with a website. FIG. 11 illustrates a method for presenting said tools comprising step 1104 of receiving a search query is followed by step 1106 of receiving results for a search query, which are then output at step 1108 to a user device. Step 1110 comprises rendering a user interface including the search diagnostic tools presented with the results for the search query. Search diagnostic tools may be presented next to, on top of, superimposed on, near, adjacent to and/or in conjunction with the search results, i.e. a method for displaying page tool, comprising: obtaining a search result matching search information and a plurality of target tool buttons.) See Paragraph [0023], (Search diagnostic tools include a plurality of selections or buttons presented with search results that allow users to modify search results such as forcing a particular result to the top of the search result, i.e. a plurality of target tool buttons associated with at least search information (e.g. the search diagnostic tools may modify search results such as by adding or deleting content modifying search result display orders, etc., i.e. search information).)
and displaying the search result and the plurality of target tool buttons in a search result page, See FIG. 11 & Paragraph [0109], (Step 1110 comprises rendering a user interface including the search diagnostic tools presented with the results for the search query. Search diagnostic tools may be presented next to, on top of, superimposed on, near, adjacent to and/or in conjunction with the search results, i.e. displaying the search result and the plurality of target tool buttons in a search result page (e.g. the user interface includes both search results and search diagnostic tools).)
and displaying a tool consumption page corresponding to a target tool after the target tool button is triggered. 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 a tool consumption page corresponding to a target tool after the target tool button is triggered (e.g. the modified search results are delivered to the requesting entity in response to the user interacting with a search diagnostic tool(s).)
While Pellow describes determining access to search diagnostic tools based on user authentication information (See [0102]),
Pellow does not explicitly disclose the step wherein the plurality of target tool buttons are determined based on at least one mounting dimension;
Almecija discloses the step wherein the plurality of target tool buttons are determined based on at least one mounting dimension; See FIG. 2 & Paragraph [0067], (Disclosing a system for adapting user interfaces. FIG. 2 illustrates method 200 comprising step 216 wherein UI output component 150 may determine dynamic shortcuts for an authenticated user. The dynamic shortcuts comprise toolbars of buttons that include tools most likely to be used in subsequent interactions with the graphical user interface. Note [0034] wherein the list of shortcuts is generated and updated based on user actions, i.e. wherein the plurality of target tool buttons are determined based on at least one mounting dimension;)
Pellow 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 Pellow 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 3,
As discussed above with claim 1, Pellow-Almecija discloses all of the limitations.
Almecija further 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 target 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 target 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. Pellow 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 target 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 target 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).)
Regarding dependent claim 5,
As discussed above with claim 1, Pellow-Almecija discloses all of the limitations.
Pellow further 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 target 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 target 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 target 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 target 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).)
Regarding dependent claim 6,
As discussed above with claim 1, Pellow-Almecija discloses all of the limitations.
Pellow further discloses the step wherein after the displaying the search result and the plurality of target tool buttons in a search result page, the method further comprises: in response to triggering a first target tool button of the target tool buttons, displaying a tool consumption page of a target tool corresponding to the first target 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 target tool button of the target tool buttons, displaying a tool consumption page of a target tool corresponding to the first target 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 target 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 target 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 target 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 target tool.)
Regarding dependent claim 7,
As discussed above with claim 1, Pellow-Almecija discloses all of the limitations.
Pellow further discloses the step wherein the displaying the search result and the plurality of target tool buttons in a search result page comprises: displaying the search result and the target 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 target 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 target 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.)
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.
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 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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 11, 13, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pellow in view of Almecija 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, Pellow-Almecija discloses all of the limitations.
Pellow-Almecija 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).)
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 4,
As discussed above with claim 1, Pellow-Almecija 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 target 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 target 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 target 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 target 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 target 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 target 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 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 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 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.
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.
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
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159