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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on February 25, 2025.
Claims 1-21 are examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 25, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-16 and 17-19 and 21 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple independent claim from dependent claim.
Claims 1-9 is directed to a software for searching a processing digital information, categorized as a software claim group. Claims 10-16 is directed to a system comprising a plurality of software, categorized as a system claim group and claims 17-19 and 21 is directed to a user device connected to a system, categorized as a device claim group. However, claim 10 and 17 as recited, seem like dependent on independent claim 1. For example, claim 10 recites a system comprising a plurality of software claims 1, the system comprising … claim 17 recites, a user device connected to a system comprising a plurality of software of claim 1, the system comprising.
Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-9 recites, “a software for searching and processing digital information, the software having access to external functionality for searching for digital information in each of one or more external data repositories, the software comprising …
Accordingly, claims 1-9 fails to specifically disclose to be a part of a physical device and to one of ordinary skill can be implemented as software routines. Therefore, renders the system at most software per se, failing to fall within a statutory category.
Accordingly, the claims lack the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 USC 101. They are clearly not a series of steps or acts to be a process nor are they a combination of chemical compounds to be a composition of matter. As such, they fail to fall within a statutory category. They are, at best, functional descriptive material per se.
Descriptive material can be characterized as either “functional descriptive material” or “nonfunc-tional descriptive material.” Both types of “descriptive material” are nonstatu-tory when claimed as descriptive material per se, 33 F.3d at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759. When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally and func-tionally interrelated to the medium and will be statu-tory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. Compare In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
Merely claiming nonfunctional descriptive material, i.e., abstract ideas, stored on a computer-readable medium, in a computer, or on an electromagnetic car-rier signal, do not make it statutory. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185-86, 209 USPQ at 8 (noting that the claims for an algorithm in Benson were unpatentable as abstract ideas because “[t]he sole practical application of the algorithm was in connection with the program-ming of a general purpose computer”).
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 10-16 recites, “a system comprising a plurality of software claims 1, the system comprising …
Claims 10-16 is directed towards a system, comprising a plurality of software claims 1. However, it is noted that the use of the word “system” does not inherently mean that the claim is directed towards a machine or article of manufacture. Each means of the claimed apparatus can be interpreted as comprising entirely of software per se according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the claim language fails to provide the necessary hardware required for the claim to fall within the statutory category of an apparatus.
Claims 17-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 10-16 recites, “a user device connected to a system comprising a plurality of software claims 1, the system comprising …
Claims 10-16 is directed towards a user device connected to a system, comprising a plurality of software claims 1. However, it is noted that the use of the word “a user device and system” does not inherently mean that the claim is directed towards a machine or article of manufacture. Each means of the claimed apparatus can be interpreted as comprising entirely of software per se according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the claim language fails to provide the necessary hardware required for the claim to fall within the statutory category of an apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 10-16 has limitation “a query receiving component configured for receiving”, “a query decomposition component configured for decomposing”, “a feature extracting component configured for extracting”, “a mapping component configured for matching” and “a transmitting component configured for transmitting”, and claims 17-19 and 21 has limitations “a query receiving component configured for receiving”, “a query decomposition component configured for decomposing”, “a feature extracting component configured for extracting”, “a mapping component configured for matching” and “a transmitting component configured for transmitting”, has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, because it uses a non-structural term “receiving, decomposing, extracting, matching, transmitting”, coupled with functional language “component configured for” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 7 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph limitation: figure 3-4 and specification page 9, lines 13-24 through page 13.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al (US 8,086,591 B2), in view of Kurasawa et al (U 20230015324 A1).
As per claim 1, Scott discloses:
- a software for searching and processing digital information, the software having access to external functionality for searching for digital information in each of one or more external data repositories, the software comprising (Fig. 5, item 502, Fig. 10, item 1006, column 3, line 45-55, column 13, lone 22-35, search engine (i.e. software for searching digital information) for searching internet, intranet, websites, (i.e. external functionality for searching digital information),
- a search function comprising: a data retrieving function defining the use of the external functionality for searching, wherein running the data retrieving function will retrieve data from the external functionality for searching (column 3, line 45-55, column 7, line 15-45, Fig. 16, focus based search (i.e., search function with data retrieving function) to retrieve topic-based search or query result,
- a data transforming function defining an output format of data retrieved from the external functionality for searching, wherein running the data transformation function will transform said data according to the output format and expose the transformed data (column 3, line 50-65, column 8, line 10-30, column 10, line 35-45, ranking data retrieved form search engine (i.e., data transformation function defining output format of data retrieved from search engine), Fig. 3, item 320, Fig. 5, item 518),
Scott does not explicitly disclose an identification declaration suitable for assessing fitness between a search query and the identification declaration. However, in the same field of endeavor Kurasawa in an analogous art disclose an identification declaration suitable for assessing fitness between a search query and the identification declaration (Para [0039], [0043], [0065], Fig. 4, a function to calculate the degree of fitness between user intention (i.e., identification declaration or topic) and search query).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the topic suitable for assessing fitness between a search query and the topic (i.e., identification declaration) taught by Kurosawa as the means to searching and processing digital information using search function in Scott. Scott and Kurasawa are analogous prior art since they both deal with searching digital information on the internet with user topic (i.e., identification declaration). A person of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make aforementioned modification to improve accuracy and performance efficiency in searching. This is because one aspect of Scott invention is to facilitates accuracy and efficiency that provides focused result when performing a search over a collection of sites in the internet, as described in column 2, line50-55, and column 6, line 20-25. Identifying a topic and assessing suitable fitness between search query and topic is part of this search process. However, Scott doesn’t specify any particular manner in which a topic is identified and declared and assessing suitable fitness between search query and topic. This would have lead one of the ordinary skill in the art to seek and recognize the topic and assess suitable fitness between search query and topic as taught by topic is identified and declared and assessing suitable fitness between search query and topic Kurasawa. Kurasawa describes how their retrieval device calculate the degree of fitness between a input search query and target intension to improve the efficiency of search as described at least in Para [0005] – [0008].
As per claim 2, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Scott discloses:
- wherein the identification declaration comprises at least one from the list of: topical focus, and objective (column 7, line 15-25, column 10, line 55-65, focused topic of the search (i.e., identification declaration).
As per claim 3, rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, and further Scott discloses:
- wherein the identification declaration is connected to a third-party service or external functionality for accessing or inferring at least parts of the identification declaration (column 23, line 20-30, column 24, line 30-40, inferring part of the topic).
As per claim 4, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Scott discloses:
- wherein the data transforming function defines a ranking of the data retrieved from the external functionality for searching (column 8, line 10-30, Fig. 5, item 518, ranking search result retrieved from internet search engine).
As per claim 5, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Scott discloses:
- wherein the data transforming function defines a modification of the data retrieved from the external functionality for searching (column 3, line 30-40, column 12, line 50-60, column 8, line 1-10, Fig. 6, modification of sub webs (i.e., modification of retrieved data)).
As per claim 6, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Scott discloses:
- wherein data transforming function defines a visualization of the data retrieved from the external functionality for searching (column 4, line 1-10, 25-30, Fig. 6, item 606, displaying the search result (i.e., visualizing data retrieved from internet search engine)).
As per claim 7, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Scott discloses:
- wherein the search function further comprising a data input function configured to receive input data, wherein said input data is used by the data retrieving function when defining the use of the external functionality for searching and/or by the data transforming function when defining the output format of data retrieved from the external functionality for searching (column 16, line 30-40, column 17, line 1-15, input search term relating to the topic to the search engine (i.e., external function) for searching topic related data and provide the result (i.e., output of the search)).
As per claim 8, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Scott discloses:
- wherein the data retrieving function specifically and/or programmatically defines one or more search queries to be used with the external functionality of searching (column 3, line 25-35, column 24, line 20-40, defining the topic of the search (i.e., defining the search queries)).
As per claim 9, rejection of claim 8 is incorporated, and further Scott discloses:
- wherein the search function further comprises a data input function configured to receive input data, wherein said input data is used by the data retrieving function when defining the use of the external functionality for searching and/or by the data transforming function when defining the output format of data retrieved from the external functionality for searching, and wherein the input data comprises one or more symbols (column 7, line 45-55, receiving search query (i.e., receive input data) which is used to search internet search engine (i.e., search functionality) and retrieve result (i.e., output), column 16, line 30-45, search input with query term, such as golf, fairway, wood, iron, etc., (i.e., input with symbol)).
- wherein the data retrieving function defines the one or more search queries based on the input data (column 3, line 25-35, column 24, line 20-40, defining the topic of the search (i.e., defining the search queries)).
Claims 10-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al (US 8,086,591 B2), in view of Kurasawa et al (U 20230015324 A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Glover et al (US 2017/0185599 A1).
As per claim 10, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Scott discloses:
- a system comprising a plurality of software claims 1, the system comprising (column 6, line 1-10, a system with combination of hardware and software),
- a query receiving component configured for receiving a search query from a user device (Fig. 1, item 114, column 7, line 45-55, searching component that receive search query from a user),
Scott does not explicitly disclose a query decomposition component configured for decomposing the search query. However, in the same field of endeavor Kurasawa in an analogous art disclose a query decomposition component configured for decomposing the search query (Para [0052], [0053], received search query decomposed into tokens),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the topic suitable for assessing fitness between a search query and the topic (i.e., identification declaration) taught by Kurosawa as the means to searching and processing digital information using search function in Scott. Scott and Kurasawa are analogous prior art since they both deal with searching digital information on the internet with user topic (i.e., identification declaration). A person of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make aforementioned modification to improve accuracy and performance efficiency in searching. This is because one aspect of Scott invention is to facilitates accuracy and efficiency that provides focused result when performing a search over a collection of sites in the internet, as described in column 2, line50-55, and column 6, line 20-25. Identifying a topic and assessing suitable fitness between search query and topic is part of this search process. However, Scott doesn’t specify any particular manner in which a topic is identified and declared and assessing suitable fitness between search query and topic. This would have lead one of the ordinary skill in the art to seek and recognize the topic and assess suitable fitness between search query and topic as taught by topic is identified and declared and assessing suitable fitness between search query and topic Kurasawa. Kurasawa describes how their retrieval device calculate the degree of fitness between a input search query and target intension to improve the efficiency of search as described at least in Para [0005] – [0008].
Combined method of Scott and Kurasawa does not explicitly disclose a feature extracting component configured for extracting a query feature vector from the search query and/or the decomposed query and for extracting a software feature vector from the identification declaration of each of the plurality of software; a mapping component configured for, based on the query feature vector and the plurality of software feature vectors, determining an optimal matched software for the search query; a transmitting component configured for transmitting the optimal matched software to the user device. However, in the same filed of endeavor Glover in an analogous art discloses a feature extracting component configured for extracting a query feature vector from the search query and/or the decomposed query and for extracting a software feature vector from the identification declaration of each of the plurality of software (Para [0003], [0016], extracting vector for certain action query (i.e., topic identification) and extracting plurality of software vector to rank search result) a mapping component configured for, based on the query feature vector and the plurality of software feature vectors, determining an optimal matched software for the search query (Fig. 1B-1H, Para [0003], [0016], [0018], [0019], [0021], linking (i.e., mapping) query feature vector and software feature vector for functionally similar (i.e., matched) software), a transmitting component configured for transmitting the optimal matched software to the user device (Para [0004], [0016], [0034], [0045] presenting the similar software (i.e., transmitting matched software) to the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Scott, as previously modified with Kurasawa, with the teaching of Glover by modifying Scott such that vectors for search enine and vector from a user query are linked to search appropriate topic related domain. The motivation for doing so would be ranking topic related search result efficiently to improve as the number of iterations performed by the ranking module when ranking a set of functionally similar search results, (Glover, Para [0048]).
As per claim 11, rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, and further Glover discloses:
- wherein the feature extracting component is further configured for extracting a code feature vector from programmatic code of the search function of each of the plurality of software, wherein the mapping component is configured to, based on the query feature vector, the plurality of software feature vectors and the plurality of code feature vectors determining the optimal matched software for the search query (Para [0016], [0018], [0035], [0038], Fig. 1B, global ranking vector correspond to list op application (i.e., program code) and link action query feature vector to match a query topic application).
As per claim 12, rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, and further Scott discloses:
- run the search function of a specific software among the plurality of software and store the exposed data from the data transforming function of the specific software as stored data corresponding to the specific software in a memory (column 2, line 20-50, column 4, line 1-10, column 7, line 35-55, search engine for searching query related data (i.e., running the search function) and storing sub webs on a hard drive (i.e., in memory), column 3, line 30-40),
- wherein the transmitting component is further configured to retrieve a stored data corresponding to the transmitted software and transmit the retrieved stored data to the user device (Fig. 13, Fig. 19, column 4, line 10-20searching the sub web engine for corresponding to the transmitted software and respected query term).
As per claim 13, rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, and further Scott discloses:
- run the data retrieving function of a specific software among the plurality of software and store the data retrieved by the data retrieving function of the specific software as stored data corresponding to the specific software in a memory, (column 2, line 20-50, column 4, line 1-10, column 7, line 35-55, search engine for searching query related data (i.e., running the data retrieval function) and storing sub webs on a hard drive (i.e., in memory), column 3, line 30-40),
- wherein the transmitting component is further configured to retrieve a stored data corresponding to the transmitted software and transmit the retrieved stored data to the user device (Fig. 13, Fig. 19, column 4, line 10-20searching the sub web engine for corresponding to the transmitted software and respected query term).
As per claim 14, rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, and further Kurasawa discloses:
- wherein the transmitting component is further configured to transmit the decomposed query to the user device (Fig. 6, Para [0049], query decomposed to tokens which display in a user device, Fig. 12, item 12, Para [0052]).
As per claim 15, rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, and further Scott discloses:
- wherein the plurality of software is stored in a database, wherein access to the database is exposed externally through an API (column 6, line 25-55, Fig. 1, item 108, Fig. 19, item 1904, sub web (i.e., search engine software) are stored in a data store) which is access by an interface component (i.e., API).
As per claim 16, rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, and further Glover discloses:
- wherein the system is configured to determine whether the search query comprises executable code, wherein, upon determining that the search query comprises executable code of a predefined type, the system receiving component is configured to transmit the search query to the transmitting component for further transmission to the user device (Para [0019], [0036], determine query parameter (i.e., search query with executable code) searching according user intention (i.e., transmission to user device for selecting user intended query)).
As per claim 17, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Scott discloses:
- a user device connected to a system comprising a plurality of software of claim 1, the system comprising (Fig. 1, Para [0006], line 20-30, column 26, line 55-65, user device connected to the software and hardware system),
- a query receiving component configured for receiving a search query from a user device (Fig. 1, item 114, column 7, line 45-55, searching component that receive search query from a user),
- the user device having functionality to: transmit a search query to the receiving component of the system (column 7, line 45-65, receiving a search query (i.e., user transmitting a search query from the user device),
- receive a software from the transmitting component of the system (column 10, line 5-20, column 11, line 5-15, receiving sub web engine (i.e., software from tramitting component),
- run the search function the software locally on the user device (column 2, line 20-50, column 4, line 1-10, column 7, line 35-55, search engine for searching query related data (i.e., running the data retrieval function) and storing sub webs on a hard drive (i.e., in memory), column 3, line 30-40),
- display the exposed data of the data transforming function the software (column 4, line 1-10, display the classified data (i.e., exposed data),
Scott does not explicitly disclose a query decomposition component configured for decomposing the search query. However, in the same field of endeavor Kurasawa in an analogous art disclose a query decomposition component configured for decomposing the search query (Para [0052], [0053], received search query decomposed into tokens),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the topic suitable for assessing fitness between a search query and the topic (i.e., identification declaration) taught by Kurosawa as the means to searching and processing digital information using search function in Scott. Scott and Kurasawa are analogous prior art since they both deal with searching digital information on the internet with user topic (i.e., identification declaration). A person of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make aforementioned modification to improve accuracy and performance efficiency in searching. This is because one aspect of Scott invention is to facilitates accuracy and efficiency that provides focused result when performing a search over a collection of sites in the internet, as described in column 2, line50-55, and column 6, line 20-25. Identifying a topic and assessing suitable fitness between search query and topic is part of this search process. However, Scott doesn’t specify any particular manner in which a topic is identified and declared and assessing suitable fitness between search query and topic. This would have lead one of the ordinary skill in the art to seek and recognize the topic and assess suitable fitness between search query and topic as taught by topic is identified and declared and assessing suitable fitness between search query and topic Kurasawa. Kurasawa describes how their retrieval device calculate the degree of fitness between a input search query and target intension to improve the efficiency of search as described at least in Para [0005] – [0008].
Combined method of Scott and Kurasawa does not explicitly disclose a feature extracting component configured for extracting a query feature vector from the search query and/or the decomposed query and for extracting a software feature vector from the identification declaration of each of the plurality of software; a mapping component configured for, based on the query feature vector and the plurality of software feature vectors, determining an optimal matched software for the search query; a transmitting component configured for transmitting the optimal matched software to the user device. However, in the same filed of endeavor Glover in an analogous art discloses a feature extracting component configured for extracting a query feature vector from the search query and/or the decomposed query and for extracting a software feature vector from the identification declaration of each of the plurality of software (Para [0003], [0016], extracting vector for certain action query (i.e., topic identification) and extracting plurality of software vector to rank search result) a mapping component configured for, based on the query feature vector and the plurality of software feature vectors, determining an optimal matched software for the search query (Fig. 1B-1H, Para [0003], [0016], [0018], [0019], [0021], linking (i.e., mapping) query feature vector and software feature vector for functionally similar (i.e., matched) software), a transmitting component configured for transmitting the optimal matched software to the user device (Para [0004], [0016], [0034], [0045] presenting the similar software (i.e., transmitting matched software) to the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Scott, as previously modified with Kurasawa, with the teaching of Glover by modifying Scott such that vectors for search enine and vector from a user query are linked to search appropriate topic related domain. The motivation for doing so would be ranking topic related search result efficiently to improve as the number of iterations performed by the ranking module when ranking a set of functionally similar search results, (Glover, Para [0048]).
As per claim 18, rejection of claim 17 is incorporated, and further Scott discloses:
- run the search function of a specific software among the plurality of software and store the exposed data from the data transforming function of the specific software as stored data corresponding to the specific software in a memory (column 2, line 20-50, column 4, line 1-10, column 7, line 35-55, search engine for searching query related data (i.e., running the search function) and storing sub webs on a hard drive (i.e., in memory), column 3, line 30-40),
- wherein the transmitting component is further configured to retrieve a stored data corresponding to the transmitted software and transmit the retrieved stored data to the user device (Fig. 13, Fig. 19, column 4, line 10-20searching the sub web engine for corresponding to the transmitted software and respected query term),
- and wherein the user device further has functionality to: receive a stored data corresponding to received software; display the stored data; and hide the displaced stored data (column 8, line 1-10, display and delete (i.e., hide) stored data by user device).
As per claim 19, rejection of claim 17 is incorporated, and further Scott discloses:
- run the data retrieving function of a specific software among the plurality of software and store the data retrieved by the data retrieving function of the specific software as stored data corresponding to the specific software in a memory (column 2, line 20-50, column 4, line 1-10, column 7, line 35-55, search engine for searching query related data (i.e., running the search function) and storing sub webs on a hard drive (i.e., in memory), column 3, line 30-40),
- wherein the transmitting component is further configured to retrieve a stored data corresponding to the transmitted software and transmit the retrieved stored data to the user device (Fig. 13, Fig. 19, column 4, line 10-20searching the sub web engine for corresponding to the transmitted software and respected query term),
- wherein the user device further has functionality to: receive a stored data corresponding to received software (column 6, line 25-35, searching stored data (i.e., receive stored data),
- provide the stored data to the data transforming function of the software to modify the stored data (column 11, line 15-25, modifying the sub web data (i.e., modify stored data),
- and after providing the stored data to the data transforming function of the software hide the displayed stored data (column 8, line 1-10, display and delete (i.e., hide) stored data by user device).
As per claim 21, ejection of claim 17 is incorporated, and further Scott discloses:
- wherein the search function of the received software of the user device further comprises a data input function configured to receive input data, wherein said input data is used by the data retrieving function when defining the use of the external functionality for searching and/or by the data transforming function when defining the output format of data retrieved from the external functionality for searching (column 16, line 30-40, column 17, line 1-15, input search term relating to the topic to the search engine (i.e., external function) for searching topic related data and provide the result (i.e., output of the search)).
Scott does not explicitly disclose wherein the transmitting component of the system is further configured to transmit the decomposed query to the user device; wherein the user device further has functionality receive decomposed search query from the transmitting component of the system; transmitting at least parts of the decomposed search query to the data input function of the software. However, in the same field of endeavor Kurasawa in an analogous art disclose wherein the transmitting component of the system is further configured to transmit the decomposed query to the user device (Para [0052], [0053], received search query decomposed into tokens and transmitted to the user device), wherein the user device further has functionality receive decomposed search query from the transmitting component of the system (Para [0005] – [0008], [0054], user device receive the decomposed token as an expansion for searching related to user intended topic), transmitting at least parts of the decomposed search query to the data input function of the software (Para [0052], decomposed search query into plurality of token as a data input for searching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the topic suitable for assessing fitness between a search query and the topic (i.e., identification declaration) taught by Kurosawa as the means to searching and processing digital information using search function in Scott. Scott and Kurasawa are analogous prior art since they both deal with searching digital information on the internet with user topic (i.e., identification declaration). A person of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make aforementioned modification to improve accuracy and performance efficiency in searching. This is because one aspect of Scott invention is to facilitates accuracy and efficiency that provides focused result when performing a search over a collection of sites in the internet, as described in column 2, line50-55, and column 6, line 20-25. Identifying a topic and assessing suitable fitness between search query and topic is part of this search process. However, Scott doesn’t specify any particular manner in which a topic is identified and declared and assessing suitable fitness between search query and topic. This would have lead one of the ordinary skill in the art to seek and recognize the topic and assess suitable fitness between search query and topic as taught by topic is identified and declared and assessing suitable fitness between search query and topic Kurasawa. Kurasawa describes how their retrieval device calculate the degree of fitness between a input search query and target intension to improve the efficiency of search as described at least in Para [0005] – [0008].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED R UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3138. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beausoliel Robert can be reached at 571-272-3645. 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.
/MOHAMMED R UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161