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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patents: 11507624 and 12332940. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they basically claim the same claimed invention.
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 non-patentable subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to one or more abstract ideas without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below.
Step 1:
The claimed method (claims 1-7), computer-readable medium (claims 8-14), and system (claims 15-20) are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Independent claim 1 (8 and 15) recites the following limitations that can be practically performed in the mind and/or with a pen and a piece of paper:
receiving, from a user, a query prefix of a query;
presenting, based on the query prefix and popularity of a general population, a plurality of query suggestions arranged in an order;
monitoring interaction of the user with one or more of the plurality of query suggestions;
updating the query prefix based on additional input from the user;
adjusting, based on the interaction and the updated query prefix, the order of the plurality of query suggestions; and
presenting the plurality of query suggestions arranged in the adjusted order.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The additional elements are:
the monitoring interaction and the adjusting, based on the interaction and the update, the order step could also be performed by generic computer functions.
These additional elements are using generic computer functions as a tool to perform.
Step 2B:
For Step 2B, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(B) identifies the list of cases in MPEP 2106. 05(d)(II) as available bases. Taking these aforementioned additional elements as an ordered combination, these additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the elements are considered separately.
As per dependent claims:
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 2 (9 and 16) - the search session extends from receipt of a first character of the query until an execution of a search based on the query.
Claim 3 (10 and 17)- the interaction indicates negative user feedback or neutral user feedback with respect to a query suggestion.
Claim 4. (11 and 18) The method of claim 3, wherein the negative user feedback is represented by a first time spent by the user on a query suggestion, and the first time spent indicates that the user has examined the query suggestion before deciding not to select the query suggestion. Attorney Docket No.: 19/238,786
Claim 6. (13) - the second time is shorter than the first time.
Claim 7. (14 and 20) - the adjusted is based on the negative user feedback or neutral user feedback.
As per dependent claims:
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claim 5. (12 and 19), wherein the neutral user feedback is represented by a second time spent by the user on the query suggestion, and the second time spent indicates that the user did not examine the query suggestion.
The additional elements of dependent claims 5, 12 and 19 are directed to generic computer functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carpenter (US Pub. 2014/0258273) in view of Black (DE 212011100017U1).
Regarding claim 1, Carpenter discloses a method for providing query suggestions within a search session, comprising: receiving, from a user, a query prefix of a query (¶ [0035], generate suggestions (e.g., words or query search terms) as the user enters keystrokes representing partial query prefixes);
presenting, based on the query prefix and popularity of a general population, a plurality of query suggestions arranged in an order (¶ [0094], causing the results to be displayed in sorted heading order without having to sort the headings themselves);
monitoring interaction of the user with one or more of the plurality of query suggestions;
updating the query prefix based on additional input from the user (¶ [0035], ¶ [0092], The system monitors 404 for the user input. The user then performs a sequence of actions);
adjusting, based on the interaction and the updated query prefix, the order of the plurality of query suggestions (¶ [0035]); and
presenting the plurality of query suggestions arranged in the adjusted order (¶ [0095]; presenting in an order by prefix).
While Carpenter discloses updating based on the interaction, Black further discloses adjusting the order (sect. 3.1.6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Black into Carpenter to provide user’s preference of search results’ presentation.
Regarding claim 2, Carpenter in view of Black discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the search session extends from receipt of a first character of the query until an execution of a search based on the query (¶ [0080], a keystroke associated with an alphanumeric character is input 304 on the mobile communications device in the search query field).
Regarding claim 3, Carpenter in view of Black discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the interaction indicates negative user feedback or neutral user feedback with respect to a query suggestion (Black, sect. 3.1.6, not lead to some positive user interaction are not passed into the user's history).
Regarding claim 4, Carpenter in view of Black discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the negative user feedback is represented by a first time spent by the user on a query suggestion, and the first time spent indicates that the user has examined the query suggestion before deciding not to select the query suggestion (Black, p. 7, determining that a timer associated with the second request proposals has expired after a predefined period of time and before another request has been received based on interaction).
Regarding claim 5, Carpenter in view of Black discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the neutral user feedback is represented by a second time spent by the user on the query suggestion, and the second time spent indicates that the user did not examine the query suggestion (Black, p. 7, determining that a timer associated with the second request proposals has expired after a predefined period of time and before another request has been received based on interaction).
Regarding claim 6, Carpenter in view of Black discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the second time is shorter than the first time (black, p. 7, one time is shorter than another time).
Regarding claim 7, Carpenter in view of Black discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the adjusted is based on the negative user feedback or neutral user feedback (Black, sect. 8).
Regarding claims 8-14, see discussion of claims 1-7 above for the same reason of rejection.
Regarding claims 15-20, see discussion of claims 1-5 and 7 above for the same reason of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUANKHANH D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3047. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 10:00am-18:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached on 571-270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000.
/TUANKHANH D PHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights