DETAILED ACTION
Amendment submitted August 7, 2026 has been considered by examiner. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to a 35 USC 102 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments towards a 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the claims “reflect improvement in the functioning of a computer because the disclosed technology ‘enable[es] performance of a quick search by determining an intent of the preliminary search query.’” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Rather, the purported improvement restates abstract ideas that were previously discussed. Specifically, determining a type of query is something that a person can identify in their mind. Searching, based on a particular type of query, is also something that a person can figure out in their mind.
As such, the purported improvements still recite the abstract idea.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 12 and 18 recite:
causing presentation, on an interface of the workspace, of: a first input field configured to receive a query associated with a navigational intent, and a second input field configured to receive a query associated with an exploratory intent – Having particular graphical user elements is an additional element.
receiving, at the first input field or the second input field, a preliminary search query for content items that are accessible via the workspace - Receiving information is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05.
enabling performance of a quick search by determining an intent of the preliminary search query, wherein,
when the preliminary search query is received at the first input field, the intent is the navigational intent, wherein the navigational intent is characterized by a determination that the preliminary search query seeks to locate and access at least one specific content item within the workspace – Identifying what information is being searched is something that may be done in the mind.
in response to determining that the intent is the navigational intent, performing the quick search by identifying a first set of content items that satisfy the preliminary search query to obtain preliminary search results - Providing search results is something that may be done in the mind and/or with help of pen and paper.
causing presentation, on the interface of the workspace, the preliminary search results including indications of the first set of content items - Providing search results is something that may be done in the mind and/or with help of pen and paper. Also, retrieving data is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity of the device as discussed in MPEP 2106.05.
receiving, at the second input field, a refined search query in a natural language format - Receiving information is considered insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05.
determining an intent of the refined search query, wherein,
when the refined search query is received at the second input field, the intent is the exploratory intent, wherein the exploratory intent is characterized by a determination that the refined search query seeks an answer to a particular question - Identifying what information is being searched is something that may be done in the mind.
in response to determining the intent as the exploratory intent, generating, using an artificial intelligence (AI) system, a first natural language response that satisfies the preliminary search query - Providing search results is something that may be done in the mind and/or with help of pen and paper. Also, retrieving data is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity of the device as discussed in MPEP 2106.05.
wherein the first natural language response includes an AI summary of the first set of content items - Providing search results, that include summaries, is something that may be done in the mind and/or with help of pen and paper.
wherein the first natural language response is generated based on content items that are accessible via the workspace - Providing search results is something that may be done in the mind and/or with help of pen and paper. Also, retrieving data is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity of the device as discussed in MPEP 2106.05.
causing presentation, on the interface of the workspace, of the first natural language response that satisfies the refined search query - Providing search results is something that may be done in the mind and/or with help of pen and paper. Also, retrieving data and displaying the data are well-understood, routine and conventional activities of the device as discussed in MPEP 2106.05.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other, the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements of hardware executing the abstract idea. The additional elements such a processor, storage device, etc are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of information processing. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-11, 13-17 and 19-20 recite further mental processes that may be completed with aid of pen and paper and as such are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9-10, 12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shirwadkar et al (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0259035).
Claims 1, 12 and 18: Shirwadkar discloses a computer-implemented method, non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium and a system for performing navigational and exploratory searches of content accessible via a workspace, the workspace including a collection of content items, the method comprising:
causing presentation, on an interface of the workspace, of:
a first input field configured to receive a query associated with a navigational intent [Fig. 5E, 0061-0062]. [See at least “the first interface section.]
a second input field configured to receive a query associated with an exploratory intent [Fig. 5E, 0061-0062]. [See at least “the second interface section.]
receiving, at the first input field or the second input field, a preliminary search query for content items that are accessible via the workspace [Fig. 5E, 0061-0062]. [See at least receiving a query.]
enabling performance of a quick search by determining an intent of the preliminary search query, wherein,
when the preliminary search query is received at the first input field, the intent is the navigational intent, wherein the navigational intent is characterized by a determination that the preliminary search query seeks to locate and access at least one specific content item within the workspace [Fig. 5E, 0059]. [See at least “search results curated based upon the first query.”]
in response to determining that the intent is the navigational intent, performing the quick search by identifying a first set of content items that satisfy the preliminary search query to obtain preliminary search results [Fig. 5E, 0059]. [See at least “search results curated based upon the first query.”]
causing presentation, on the interface of the workspace, the preliminary search results including indications of the first set of content items [Fig. 5E, 0059]. [See at least “search results curated based upon the first query.”]
receiving, at the second input field, a refined search query in a natural language format [Fig. 5E, 0061-0062]. [See at least a prompt of “talk to me.” That implies that the query would be in a natural language. Furthermore, receiving data at the second input field is entirely optional based on the above language.]
determining an intent of the refined search query, wherein,
when the refined search query is received at the second input field, the intent is the exploratory intent, wherein the exploratory intent is characterized by a determination that the refined search query seeks an answer to a particular question
in response to determining the intent as the exploratory intent, generating, using an artificial intelligence (AI) system, a first natural language response that satisfies the preliminary search query [Fig. 5E, 0061-0062]. [See at least “accessing a second AI-generated content item…”]
wherein the first natural language response includes an AI summary of the first set of content items [Fig. 5E, 0061-0062]. [See at least “a summary of the second group of content items.”]
wherein the first natural language response is generated based on content items that are accessible via the workspace [Fig. 5E, 0061-0062].
causing presentation, on the interface of the workspace, of the first natural language response that satisfies the refined search query [Fig. 5E, 0061-0062].
Claim 2: Shirwadkar discloses the method of Claim 1 and Shirwadkar further discloses embedding links to particular content items in a particular natural language response that satisfies a particular search result [Fig. 5E, 0061-0062].
Claim 6: Shirwadkar discloses the method of Claim 1 and Shirwadkar further discloses wherein each item in the first set of content items is retrievable from the workspace [Fig. 5E, 0061-0062].
Claim 9: Shirwadkar discloses the method of Claim 1 and Shirwadkar further discloses wherein the first natural language response is generated based on content items in the first set of content items [Fig. 5E, 0061-0062].
Claim 10: Shirwadkar discloses the method of Claim 1 and Shirwadkar further discloses at the second input field, a refined search query in a natural language format: initialize a chat session with the AI system, wherein the chat session includes a series of exchanges, comprising inputs and responses, in which context is maintained between exchanges in the series; and inputting, as part of the chat session, the refined search query to the AI system to generate the first natural language response [0071]. [See at least “a real-time contextual question answering service that can be used within the content interface…”]
Claim 17: Shirwadkar discloses the medium of Claim 12 and Shirwadkar further discloses concurrent with causing presentation the refined search results, cause presentation of an interface element, wherein interacting with the interface element causes presentation of indications of a second set of content items satisfying the refined search query [Fig. 5E, 0061-0062].
Claim 19: Shirwadkar discloses the system of Claim 18 and Shirwadkar further discloses prior to generating the first natural language response: initialize a chat session with the Al system, wherein the chat session includes a series of exchanges, comprising inputs and responses, in which context is maintained between exchanges in the series; and input, as part of the chat session, the refined search query to the Al system to generate the second natural language response [0071]. [See at least “a real-time contextual question answering service that can be used within the content interface…”]
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 3, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirwadkar et al (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0259035) in view of Bathwal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0281487).
Claim 3: Shirwadkar discloses the method of Claim 1 and Shirwadkar further discloses wherein the preliminary search results correspond to first preliminary search results, wherein receiving the preliminary search query at the first input field initiates a first search session [Fig. 5E, 0061-0062].
But, Shirwadkar does not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises: initiating a second search session by receiving a second preliminary search query for content items that are accessible via the workspace; and causing presentation, on the interface of the workspace, of a third input field and second preliminary search results including a third set of content items and a second natural language response, wherein the third input field is configured to enable investigation of the second preliminary search results, and wherein (i) the first search session comprising the first set of content items, the first natural language response, and the second input field and (ii) the second search session comprising the third set of content items, the second natural language response, and the third input field are both accessible via the interface of the workspace.
However, Bathwal [0048] discloses where a system identifies if a search belongs to another session based on the content/context of the query. As to inputting search strings into particular fields (i.e. first field, second field, etc), that is considered designer’s choice and an intended use of a search field.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shirwadkar with Bathwal. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide relevant results for different searches and/or search sessions.
Claim 13: Shirwadkar discloses the medium of Claim 12, and Shirwadkar further discloses wherein the preliminary search results correspond to first preliminary search results, wherein a first search session is initiated in response to the preliminary search query being entered into the first input field, [Fig. 5E, 0061-0062].
But, Shirwadkar alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the storage medium further includes instructions to cause the system to: initiate a second search session in response to second preliminary search query being entered into a third input field; and cause presentation, on the interface of the workspace, of a fourth input field and a second natural language response that satisfies the second preliminary search query, wherein (i) the first search session containing the first set of content items, the first natural language response, and the second input field and (ii) the second search session containing, the second natural language response and the fourth input field are both accessible via the interface of the workspace.
However, Bathwal [0048] discloses where a system identifies if a search belongs to another session based on the content/context of the query. As to inputting search strings into particular fields (i.e. first field, second field, etc), that is considered designer’s choice and an intended use of a search field.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shirwadkar with Bathwal. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide relevant results for different searches and/or search sessions.
Claim 14: Shirwadkar as modified discloses the medium of Claim 13 and Shirwadkar further discloses wherein the third input field is the first input field [Fig. 5E, 0061-0062].
Claim 20: Shirwadkar discloses the system of Claim 18 and Shirwadkar further discloses wherein the preliminary search query correspond to first preliminary search query, wherein the preliminary search results correspond to first preliminary search results [Fig. 5E, 0061-0062].
But Shirwadkar alone does not explicitly disclose
wherein instructions stored on the memory further cause the at least one hardware processor to: generate, using the Al system, a second natural language response satisfying a second preliminary search query, wherein the preliminary search query is entered into a third input field; cause presentation, on the interface, of second preliminary search results including the third natural language response and a fourth input field, wherein (i) the first preliminary search results including the first natural language response and the second input field and (ii) the second preliminary search results including the second natural language response and the fourth input field are both accessible via the user interface.
However, Bathwal [0048] discloses where a system identifies if a search belongs to another session based on the content/context of the query. As to inputting search strings into particular fields (i.e. first field, second field, etc), that is considered designer’s choice and an intended use of a search field.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shirwadkar with Bathwal. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide relevant results for different searches and/or search sessions.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirwadkar et al (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0259035) in view of Bathwal et al (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0281487) and further in view of Schoenberg et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0210506).
Claim 4: Shirwadkar as modified discloses the method of Claim 3, but Shirwadkar alone does not explicitly disclose causing presentation, on the interface of the workspace, of an interface element, wherein activating the interface element indicates an intent to change search sessions; and causing presentation, on the interface of the workspace, of the first preliminary search results and the second input field.
However, Schoenberg [0138] discloses an interface “and a mechanism for switching between the sessions.” That is interpreted as switching between search sessions with different search results being provided in each session.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shirwadkar with Schoenberg. One would have been motivated to do so in order for a “user to simultaneously participate in multiple sessions.”
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirwadkar et al (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0259035) in view of Bailey (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0089220).
Claim 5: Shirwadkar discloses the method of Claim 1, but Shirwadkar alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the first set of content items is an empty set containing zero content items, wherein the first natural language response identifies that no content items were found, and wherein the method further comprises: in response to the first set of content items being an empty set, initialize an Al- enabled chat session, wherein the second input field is configured to receive a new search query.
However, Bailey [0030] discloses that when no appropriate results are retrieved, a chatbot provides options for a user that the user can select from to query a system.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shirwadkar with Bailey. One would have been motivated to do so in order to better understand a user.
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirwadkar et al (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0259035) in view of Farrell (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0255759).
Claims 7 and 15: Shirwadkar discloses the method and medium of Claims 1 and 12 above, but Shirwadkar alone does not explicitly disclose wherein a portion of the content items accessible via the workspace are content items retrieved from a source that is outside of the workspace.
However, Farrell [0075] discloses retrieving content from external sources.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shirwadkar with Farrell. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide access to relevant sources.
Claims 8 and 16: Shirwadkar as modified discloses the method and the medium of Claims 7 and 15 above, but Shirwadkar alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises: causing presentation, on the interface of the workspace, a list of one or more sources of content items, the content items being accessible via the workspace, wherein each of the one or more sources is selectable through the interface of the workspace; and wherein the preliminary search results only include content items in the first set of content items that are from one or more selected sources.
However, Farrell [0075] discloses showing and selecting external sources on an interface and retrieving appropriate content from at least one external source.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shirwadkar with Farrell. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide access to relevant sources.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirwadkar et al (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0259035) in view of Teton-Landis (US Patent 11,687,701).
Claim 11: Shirwadkar discloses the method of Claim 1, but Shirwadkar alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the content items are blocks of the workspace, wherein the blocks are configured in accordance with a block data model.
However, Teton-Landis (Col 3 ln 18-30) discloses using a block data model for workspaces.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shirwadkar with Teton-Landis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to manage data in a workspace.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Saad et al (2025/0265254) describes at least detecting type of search query.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
