DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant application having Application No. 19/252,685 filed on 6/27/2025 is presented for examination by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of Applicant's claim for priority as a CON of 18/167,524 filed on 2/10/2023 now Patent 12,346,380 B2; which is a CON of 16/451,062 filed on 6/25/2019 now Patent 11,580,168 B2; which is a CON of 14/962,081 filed on 12/8/2015 now Patent 10,380,192 B2.
Drawings
The Applicant's drawings filed on 6/27/2025 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the Applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 6/27/2025 is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Specification Objection
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
The content of Cross-References to Related Applications is missing the U.S. Patent No. 12,346,380 of the U.S. Patent Application No. 18/167,524, filed on 10/2/2023. See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 201.11. Appropriate correction is respectfully required.
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.
As per claim 1, the claim recites “A method for providing query suggestions, comprising:
receiving a preceding query from a user;
receiving a prefix of a new query from the user;
determining a list of query suggestions based on relevant query pairs each of which includes the preceding query and another query starting with the prefix of the new query;
ranking the list of query suggestions based on collocation scores of the relevant query pairs;
selecting a number of query suggestions from top ranked query suggestions in the list based on a degree of popularity of the preceding query, wherein the number is bigger if the preceding query has higher popularity; and
providing the selected query suggestions to the user”.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 1 discloses a method which is a process within the meaning of the section.
Step 2A - Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited
The claim recites the limitations “determining”, “ranking” and “selecting” which specifically recite “determining a list of query suggestions…”, “ranking the list of query suggestions based on collocation scores…” and “selecting a number of query suggestions…”. These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen or paper. For example, “determining”, “ranking” and “selecting” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper looking at information and/or characteristics of data items and examining to determine similarity score for each of the data item, ranking the data items based on the similarity score, and select the desired or relevant data item based on the similarity score. Furthermore, the “ranking” step is not only directed to a mental process but also directed to a mathematical concept which is an abstract idea.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application
The claim recites the additional elements “receiving a preceding query from a user”, “receiving a prefix of a new query from the user” and “providing the selected query suggestions to the user”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional steps: the “receiving” and “providing” steps mount to data gathering and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and/or analyzed data which are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the 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, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The insignificant extra-solution activities identified above, which include the data-gathering and the step of “providing” is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of performing the “providing” step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
As per claim 2, the claim recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising: retrieving query pairs from query logs, and filtering the query pairs in accordance with a criterion, wherein the filtered query pairs include the relevant query pairs”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional limitation of “retrieving” mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and the additional limitation of “filtering” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 3, the claim recites “The method of claim 2, further comprising: splitting the filtered query pairs into lateral and specialization groups”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation mounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and does not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception.
As per claim 4, the claim recites “The method of claim 3, further comprising: for each of the groups, calculating a corresponding collocation score for each query pair”.
As per claim 5, the claim recites “The method of claim 2, wherein the criterion is one or more of the following: a collocation count of each of the query pairs, a pair frequency ratio between two queries in each of the query pairs, indication of each query in each of the query pairs, or a word edit distance between two queries in each of the query pairs”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 6, the claim recites “The method of claim 2, wherein the query logs are retrieved within a predetermined time period”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 7, the claim recites “The method of claim 6, further comprising: storing the filtered query pairs into a query pair database along with corresponding metadata comprising one or more of lateral/specialization properties and collocation score”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, this additional limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to perform an existing process on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer do not amount to significantly more.
As per claim 8, the claim recites “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium having information recorded thereon for providing query suggestions, when read by at least one processor, effectuate operations comprising:” the limitations similar to claim 1.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 8 discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium which is a manufacture within the meaning of the section.
Step 2A – Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited
The claim recites the limitations as same as claim 1, and therefore are interpreted as an abstract idea under the same premise as claim 1.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application
The claim recites additional elements as same as claim 1, and therefore are interpreted as an abstract idea under the same premise as claim 1.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept
The claim recites the limitation as same as claim 1, and therefore is considered under the same premise as claim 1 as no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
As per claims 9-14, the claims are rejected under the same premises as claims 2-7 respectively.
As per claim 15, the claim recites “A system for providing query suggestions, the system comprising: memory storing computer program instructions; and one or more processors that, in response to executing the computer program instructions, effectuate operations comprising:” the limitations similar to claim 1.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 15 discloses a system which is a machine within the meaning of the section.
Step 2A – Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited
The claim recites the limitations as same as claim 1, and therefore are interpreted as an abstract idea under the same premise as claim 1.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application
The claim recites additional elements as same as claim 1, and therefore are interpreted as an abstract idea under the same premise as claim 1.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept
The claim recites the limitation as same as claim 1, and therefore is considered under the same premise as claim 1 as no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
As per claims 16-20, the claims are rejected under the same premises as claims 2-6 respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection and the rejection as set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
After consideration of the prior arts of the submitted IDS and conducting different searches in PE2E - SEARCH, Similarity and More Like Doc Searches, Google Scholar, and ACM Digital Library, it appears that none of prior arts discloses, teaches or fairly suggests the limitations as a whole in the independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
However, none of the prior arts, singular and any order combination, discloses the underlined limitations: “receiving a preceding query from a user; receiving a prefix of a new query from the user; determining a list of query suggestions based on relevant query pairs each of which includes the preceding query and another query starting with the prefix of the new query; ranking the list of query suggestions based on collocation scores of the relevant query pairs; selecting a number of query suggestions from top ranked query suggestions in the list based on a degree of popularity of the preceding query, wherein the number is bigger if the preceding query has higher popularity; and providing the selected query suggestions to the user”, as recited in the independent claims 1, 8 and 15. Theses claimed limitations when consider as a whole are allowable over the prior arts of records.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,507,624 B2 by Goyal et al. teaches providing query suggestions based on user feedback. In one example, a prefix of a query is first received. An input including a prefix of a query is received from a user in a search session. A plurality of query suggestions are fetched based on the prefix of the query. Rankings of the plurality of query suggestions are determined based, at least in part, on the user's previous interactions in the search session with respect to at least one of the plurality of query suggestions. The at least one of the plurality of query suggestions has been previously provided to the user in the search session. The plurality of query suggestions are provided in the search session based on their rankings as a response to the input.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bai D. Vu whose telephone number is (571) 270-1751. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:30.
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.
/BAI D VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163 5/30/2026
Prosecution Insights