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 June 24, 2026.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendment filed on June 24, 2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been received, entered into the record and considered.
As a result of the amendment, claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this office action.
Double Patenting
As a result of the Terminal Disclaimed filed on June 24, 2026, examiner withdrawn the pending Terminal Disclaimer from the claims
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 amended to determining, during execution of the respective search query, a number of hits in an inverted index for each of the one or more modified search queries. This amended limitation introduces new matters. Applicants’ remarks stated that support for the amendments to the claims presented herein can be found in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0117593, in Para [0020], [0026], [0028]. However, this Application is irrelevant to this invention. US 2023/0117593 relates to Self-consistent inception architecture for efficient baselining media creatives, applicant: Tatari Inc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dettinger et al (US 2004/0068488 A1), in view of Whitman et al (US 2013/0262471 A1).
As per claim 1, Dettinger discloses:
- a method, comprising (Abstract, line 1-6, a method for a query analysis),
- receiving a search query containing query terms (Fig. 3, item 302, Para [0040] – [0043], search query with query term is received),
- contemporaneously processing the search query on content stored in a content repository and performing an impact analysis on the search query, wherein performing the impact analysis comprises (Fig. 3, item 320, Para [0008], [0039] – [0043]), different type of analysis of different query term and/or criterion (i.e., contemporaneous process of the search query) and see the impact of different type of query term and/or criterion on the search result),
- generating one or more modified search queries, each of the one or more modified search queries generated by deleting a query term from, adding a new query term to, or changing a keyword criterion in the search query (Fig. 3, item 310, 316, Fig. 4-6, Para [0014], [0023], [0043], generating modified query by adding or removing query term or changing the criteria of the query with different Boolean operation),
- determining, a number of hits (Fig. 4-5, Para [0048], total number of items in a result for each time query is modified by adding or removing query term or changing the criteria of the query),
- and providing a query term analytics report indicating the number of hits for each of the one or more modified search queries (Fig. 6, Para [0050], a matrix style representation showing the result (i.e., query analysis report) indicating total number of hits with different query term and criterion),
Dettinger does not explicitly disclose an inverter index. However, in the same field of endeavor Whitman in an analogous art discloses an inverter index (Para [0005], [0030], [0053], Fig. 4, inverted index to map query term in a document).
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 an inverted index as taught by Whitman as the means to process and analyze the impact of a query term change or modified criteria in Dettinger, (Dettinger, Fig. 4-6, Whitman, Para [0005]). Dettinger and Whitman are analogous prior art since they both deal with the impact of query term modification and analysis. A person of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make aforementioned modification to determine the positive or negative impact of query result by providing different query criterion and different query term. This is because one aspect of Dettinger invention is to understand the greatest impact of a query different query term and criteria as described in at least Para [0008]. An inverted index is part of this query term analysis. However, Dettinger doesn’t specify any particular manner in which an inverted index is used to count the number of hit or returned result. This would have lead one of the ordinary skill in the art to seek and recognize the processing of query term analysis in an inverted index in Whitman. Whitman describes how their inverted index bridged the information stored in an inverted index and relation database efficiently as described at least in Para [0026], as desired by Dettinger.
As per claim 2, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Dettinger discloses:
- wherein the impact analysis further includes determining a number of hits responsive to a keyword or keyword criterion being excluded from or included in a modified search query (Fig. 4-6, Fig. 3, item 308, Para [0011], [0042] – [0043], different result with different query criteria and different modified query).
As per claim 3, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Dettinger discloses:
- tracking a count of hits for each of the query terms in the search query using in-memory counters (Para [0035], [0039], in memory application 140 keeps tack of total result of different query criterion and different query term).
As per claim 4, rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and further Whitman discloses:
- updating a compressed bitset corresponding to the count (Para [0026], efficient representation (i.e., compressed bitset) are updated in the bitset database, Para [0015]).
As per claim 5, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Dettinger discloses:
- accumulating statistics on processing the search query using in-memory counters, wherein the query term analytics report is generated using the statistics thus accumulated (Fig. 5, Para [0033], different query analysis statistics for different query terms are accumulated as report in Fig. 6).
As per claim 6, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Whitman discloses:
- communicating the query term analytics report to a user device for presentation on the user device (Fig. 6, Para [0050], user interface screen 600 showing query analysis report) on the user device.
As per claim 7, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Whitman discloses:
- wherein the content comprises a document or an electronic message (Para [0005], [0030] – [0032], [0059], mapping contents in a document).
As per claim 8-14,
Claims 8-14 are system claims corresponding to method claims 1-7 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth to the rejection of claim 1-7 above.
As per claim 15-20,
Claims 15-20 are computer program product claims corresponding to method claims 1-6 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth to the rejection of claims 1-6 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on June 24, 2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
In response to applicants’ remarks in page 7, applicants states that, support for the amended limitation od claim 1, 8 and 15, determining, during execution of the respective search query, a number of hits in an inverted index for each of the one or more modified search queries can be found in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0117593, in Para [0020], [0026], [0028]. However, this Application is irrelevant to this invention. US 2023/0117593 relates to Self-consistent inception architecture for efficient baselining media creatives, applicant: Tatari Inc. However, applicant’s specification filed on 04/21/2025 Para [0005], states something similar to during execution of the respective search query as follows:
[0005] A goal of the invention disclosed herein is to provide a computer-implemented solution that can, contemporaneous with a search query being run against content stored in a data storage location, repository, content server, etc., analyze the results of the search query in real time (e.g., while the search query is being executed by a search engine, a query processing engine, or the like).
However, this written description while the search query is being executed by a search engine, also lacks the written description for determining, during execution of the respective search query, a number of hits in an inverted index for each of the one or more modified search queries.
Therefore, the amended limitation for claim 1, 8 and 15 introduced new matter.
In response to applicants’ argument in page 8, applicants argued that, cited portions of Dettinger do not disclose this claim limitation, "contemporaneously processing the search query on content stored in a content repository and performing an impact analysis on the search query" as recited by claim 1.
Examiner disagree and respectfully response that, Dettinger teaches this limitation contemporaneously processing the search query on content stored in a content repository and performing an impact analysis on the search query, wherein performing the impact analysis comprises in Fig. 3, item 320, Para [0008], [0039] – [0043]), different type of analysis of different query term and/or criterion (i.e., contemporaneous process of the search query) and see the impact of different type of query term and/or criterion on the search result.
Examiner broadest reasonable interpretation: Since applicant’s specification does not provide any clear meaning of the word contemporaneously, examiner gives the dictionary meaning of the word contemporaneously as “at the same time”. Accordingly, Dettinger teaches impact of adding or removing query term or query operation AND or OR and see the impact at the same time at least in Para [0043], and Para [0047]. Para [0043], line 30-35, when assessing the impact of a criterion that is associated with an OR operator, it is possible to evaluate the original query, minus the Ored condition (i.e., at the same time) against the results generated by the initial query, to determine how many fewer items would be returned relative to the original query. In this case, it would not be necessary to re-execute the query permutation against the complete data source (i.e., database(s) 156). This is based on the fact that an ORed criterion will add additional items to query results, thus removal of the ORing criterion will result in some subset of items returned from the original query. And Para [0047], line 6-10, the runtime component 150 (specifically the database engine) may be configured to determine the impact of each query component at the time of executing each query, (i.e., at the same time or contemporaneously).
In response to applicant’s argument in page 9, applicants argued that Whitman does not mention “determining a number of hits in an inverted index for each of the one or more modified search queries”, as recited in claim 1.
Examiner disagrees and respectfully response that, Whitman teaches inverted index to keep track of or intersect or union operation of a query term, at least in Para [0015], [0052]-[0053].
Examiner broadest reasonable interpretation: According to Para [0040], of the applicants specification query term analytics system has the bitsets (e.g., a bitset for "social," a bitset for "distance," a bitset for "space," a bitset for "time," a bitset for "covid," a bitset for "corona," etc.) in memory, it can compute the numbers using the set algebra required in the search query. For instance, following the above example, the search query indicates that ("social" and "distance") requires an intersection operation and ("space" or "time) requires a union operation. Accordingly, Whitman in Para [0015], [0051] - [0052], also teaches Fig. 3, item bitset intersection and union operation and count of play operation (i.e., inverted index with hit count), as claimed.
Therefore, examiners firmly believe that Dettinger and Whitman alone or in combination reasonably teaches the argued limitation and clam1, 8 and 15 as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at (571) 272-4080. 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
Prosecution Insights