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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are pending in this Office Correspondence.
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/411,332, filed January 12, 2024, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/307,448, now U.S. Patent No. 11,907,240, filed May 4, 2021, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/018,450, now U.S. Patent No. 11,003,678, filed June 26, 2018, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/439,288, now U.S. Patent No. 10,031,954, filed April 29, 2015, which is a national stage application, filed under 35 U.S.C. § 371, of International Application No. PCT/CN2015/077268, filed on April 23, 2015.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claims 1 recites a “method for receiving a search query. . ..; fetching search results. . . ; determining whether a search result card . . . is available in a database; determining whether user behavior statistics is up to date; fetching the search result card . . . ; and constructing a new search result card . . .” the claim(s) recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process
Step 2A Prong One:
" determining whether a search result card . . . is available in a database" as drafted recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. Please see Instant paragraphs [0053] where one can mentally evaluate to perform search in a database for fetching
“determining whether user behavior statistics is up to date” as drafted recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. Please see Instant paragraphs [0064] where one can mentally evaluate to perform executing a view query.
“constructing a new search result card” as drafted recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. Please see Instant paragraphs [0060] where one can mentally evaluate to generating a masked set of data in response to the view query.
These imitations 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, other than reciting a "database" or "processor", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “determining” and “constructing” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper, within the plurality of command sets, “constructing a new search result card based on information from the search results and real-time user behavior.”
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements "receiving a search query" and "fetching search results of the search query.” These limitations amount to a data gathering step and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations represents an extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The limitations "receiving” and “fetching” are 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)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc....; Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); (v) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 8 and 15 are rejected for the same rational under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Further the limitations in the dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14 and 16 – 20, respectively, merely specify the type of the data gathered and analyzed without adding significantly more. Analysis of the dependent claims is shown below.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the information from the search results comprises one or more of a title, an image, and a snippet”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claims 9 and 16, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 2. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the new search result card comprises an index portion and a content portion”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claims 10 and 17, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3 and includes all the limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 3. The claim recites the additional limitation of “selecting the information from the search results; and constructing the index portion based on the information from the search results and the real-time user behavior”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claims 11 and 18, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 3 and includes all the limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 3. The claim recites the additional limitation of “selecting a plurality of information entities from the search result; and constructing the content portion based on the plurality of information entities and the real-time user behavior”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea, since analyzing of information is a mental process, and therefore, does not meaningfully limits the claim. Same rationale applies to claims 12 and 19, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5 and includes all the limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of claim 5. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the information entities are arranged in an order in which one of the information entities that is more preferred by the user is placed before another one of the information entities that is less preferred by the user”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more. Same rationale applies to claims 13 and 20, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 5 and includes all the limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of claim 5. The claim recites the additional limitation of “generating a ranking of the information entities based on the user's past behavior, wherein the order of the information entities is determined based on the ranking”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea, since analyzing of information is a mental process, and therefore, does not meaningfully limits the claim. Same rationale applies to claim 14, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more than the abstract idea.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 – 20 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1 – 20 of Application No. 16/018,450, now U.S. Patent 11,003,678. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f) or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.78(b), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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 double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the co-pending application and is covered by the co-pending application since the co-pending application and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Instant application 19/294,429
Co-pending Application 16/018,450, USP 11,003,678
1. A method for providing a search result card, the method comprising:
receiving a search query from a user;
fetching search results of the search query;
determining whether a search result card in response to the search query is available in a database;
if the search result card is available in the database, determining whether user behavior statistics is up to date;
if the user behavior statistics is up to date, fetching the search result card from the database; and
if the user behavior statistics is not up to date, constructing a new search result card based on information from the search results and real-time user behavior.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the information from the search results comprises one or more of a title, an image, and a snippet.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the new search result card comprises an index portion and a content portion.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising: selecting the information from the search results; and constructing the index portion based on the information from the search results and the real-time user behavior.
5. The method of claim 3, further comprising: selecting a plurality of information entities from the search result; and constructing the content portion based on the plurality of information entities and the real-time user behavior.
The method of claim 5, wherein the information entities are arranged in an order in which one of the information entities that is more preferred by the user is placed before another one of the information entities that is less preferred by the user.
7. The method of claim 6, further comprising: generating a ranking of the information entities based on the user's past behavior, wherein the order of the information entities is determined based on the ranking.
8. A non-transitory, computer-readable medium having information recorded thereon for providing a search result card, wherein the information, when read by a machine, causes the machine to perform operations comprising: receiving a search query from a user; fetching search results of the search query; determining whether a search result card in response to the search query is available in a database; if the search result card is available in the database, determining whether user behavior statistics is up to date; if the user behavior statistics is up to date, fetching the search result card from the database; and if the user behavior statistics is not up to date, constructing a new search result card based on information from the search results and real-time user behavior.
9. The medium of claim 8, wherein the information from the search results comprises one or more of a title, an image, and a snippet.
10. The medium of claim 9, wherein the new search result card comprises an index portion and a content portion.
11. The medium of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise: selecting the information from the search results; and constructing the index portion based on the information from the search results and the real-time user behavior.
12. The medium of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise: selecting a plurality of information entities from the search result; and constructing the content portion based on the plurality of information entities and the real-time user behavior.
13. The medium of claim 12, wherein the information entities are arranged in an order in which one of the information entities that is more preferred by the user is placed before another one of the information entities that is less preferred by the user.
14. The medium of claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise: generating a ranking of the information entities based on the user's past behavior, wherein the order of the information entities is determined based on the ranking.
15. A system providing a search result card, comprising: memory storing computer program instructions; and one or more processors that, in response to executing the computer program instructions, effectuate operations comprising: receiving a search query from a user; fetching search results of the search query; determining whether a search result card in response to the search query is available in a database; if the search result card is available in the database, determining whether user behavior statistics is up to date; if the user behavior statistics is up to date, fetching the search result card from the database; and if the user behavior statistics is not up to date, constructing a new search result card based on information from the search results and real-time user behavior.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the information from the search results comprises one or more of a title, an image, and a snippet.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the new search result card comprises an index portion and a content portion.
18. The system of claim 17, wherein the operations further comprise: selecting the information from the search results; and constructing the index portion based on the information from the search results and the real-time user behavior.
19. The system of claim 17, wherein the operations further comprise: selecting a plurality of information entities from the search result; and constructing the content portion based on the plurality of information entities and the real-time user behavior.
20. The system of claim 19, wherein the information entities are arranged in an order in which one of the information entities that is more preferred by the user is placed before another one of the information entities that is less preferred by the user.
1. A method, implemented on at least one computing device each of which has at least one processor, storage, and a communication platform connected to a network for generating search result cards, the method comprising:
receiving an input associated with a search query from a user;
fetching one or more search results in accordance with the search query;
classifying and sorting content associated with each of the one or more search results into one or more categories based on behavior history data associated with the user;
selecting one or more information entities to be extracted from the content based on the one or more categories;
generating one or more search result cards with respect to the user, wherein each search result card corresponds to one of the one or more search results and includes at least one of the one or more information entities; and
providing the one or more search result cards as a response to the search query to the user.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the one or more search result cards comprises: obtaining at least one of browsing behavior and browsing history associated with the user, wherein at least one of the one or more search result cards is generated based on the browsing behavior, the browsing history, or the browsing behavior and the browsing history, and the at least one of the one or more information entities are selected based on the browsing behavior, the browsing history, or the browsing behavior and the browsing history.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, prior to the one or more search result cards being generated, that at least one search result card responsive to the search query is unavailable; and obtaining user statistics associated with the user, wherein the one or more search result cards are generated in real-time based on the user statistics.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the one or more search result cards comprises: retrieving, from a user behavior statistics database, the behavior history data associated with the user; and generating an index portion and a content portion for each of the one or more search result cards based on the behavior history data associated with the user.
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising: determining at least one priority for presenting information from a search result based on the behavior history data associated with the user, wherein the one or more search result cards are generated such that the information from the search result is presented in accordance with the at least one priority.
6. The method of claim 4, further comprising: selecting abstract information associated with each of the one or more search results, wherein the content of each of the one or more search results comprises the abstract information, wherein classifying the content associated with each of the one or more search results into the one or more categories comprises sorting the abstract information into the one or more categories based on the behavior history data associated with the user; and generating a ranking of the one or more information entities based on the behavior history data associated with the user, wherein each search result card is generated based on the ranking of the one or more information entities.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein generating the one or more search result cards comprises: selecting, for each of the one or more search results, the at least one of the one or more information entities based on the ranking of the one or more information entities; and incorporating the at least one of the one or more information entities associated with the corresponding search result into a corresponding search result card.
8. A system having at least one processor, storage, and a communication platform for generating a search result card, the system comprising: a user interfacing module configured to receive an input associated with a search query from a user; a search results fetching module configured to fetch one or more search results in accordance with the search query; a classification and sorting unit configured to classify and sort content associated with each of the one or more search results into one or more categories based on behavior history data associated with the user; an information entities selection unit configured to select one or more information entities to be extracted from the content based on the one or more categories; a search result cards generating module configured to generate one or more search result cards with respect to the user, wherein each search result card corresponds to one of the one or more search results and includes at least one of the one or more information entities; and a search result cards presenting module configured to provide the one or more search result cards as a response to the search query to the user.
9. The system of claim 8, wherein the search result cards generating module is further configured to: obtain at least one of browsing behavior and browsing history associated with the user, wherein at least one of the one or more search result cards is generated based on browsing behavior, the browsing history, or the browsing behavior and the browsing history, and the at least one of the one or more information entities are selected based on the browsing behavior, the browsing history, or the browsing behavior and the browsing history.
10. The system of claim 8, wherein the search result cards generating module is further configured to: determine, prior to the one or more search result cards being generated, that at least one search result card responsive to the search query is unavailable; and obtain user statistics associated with the user, wherein the one or more search result cards are generated in real-time based on the user statistics.
11. The system of claim 8, wherein the search result cards generating module comprises: an index portion generating module configured to generate an index portion for each of the one or more search result cards based on the behavior history data associated with the user; and a content portion generating module configured to generate a content portion for each of the one or more search result cards based on the behavior history data associated with the user, wherein the index portion generating module and the content portion generating module are configured to retrieve, from a user behavior statistics database, the behavior history data associated with the user.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the search result cards generating module is further configured to: determine at least one priority for presenting information from a search result based on the behavior history data associated with the user, wherein the one or more search result cards are generated such that the information from the search result is presented in accordance with the at least one priority.
13. The system of claim 11, wherein the index portion generating module comprises: an abstract information selection unit configured to select abstract information associated with each of the one or more search results, wherein the content of each of the one or more search results comprises the abstract information, wherein the classification and sorting unit being configured to classify the content associated with each of the one or more search results into the one or more categories comprises the classification and sorting unit being further configured to sort the abstract information into the one or more categories based on the behavior history data associated with the user.
14. The system of claim 13, wherein the content portion generating module comprises: a ranking unit configured to generate a ranking of the one or more information entities based on the behavior history data associated with the user, wherein each search result card is generated based on the ranking of the one or more information entities, wherein the content portion generating module is further configured to: select, for each of the one or more search results, the at least one of the one or more information entities based on the ranking of the one or more information entities, and incorporating the at least one of the one or more information entities associated with the corresponding search result into a corresponding search result card.
15. A non-transitory machine-readable medium having information recorded thereon for generating a search result card, wherein the information, when read by the machine, effectuate operations comprising: receiving an input associated with a search query from a user; fetching one or more search results in accordance with the search query; classifying and sorting content associated with each of the one or more search results into one or more categories based on behavior history data associated with the user; selecting one or more information entities to be extracted from the content based on the one or more categories; generating one or more search result cards with respect to the user, wherein each search result card corresponds to one of the one or more search results and includes at least one of the one or more information entities; and providing the one or more search result cards as a response to the search query to the user.
16. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15, wherein generating the one or more search result cards comprises: obtaining at least one of browsing behavior and browsing history associated with the user, wherein at least one of the one or more search result cards is generated based on the browsing behavior, the browsing history, or the browsing behavior and the browsing history, and the at least one of the one or more information entities are selected based on the browsing behavior, the browsing history, or the browsing behavior and the browsing history.
17. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: determining, prior to the one or more search result cards being generated, that at least one search result card responsive to the search query is unavailable; and obtaining user statistics associated with the user, wherein the one or more search result cards are generated in real-time based on the user statistics.
18. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15, wherein generating the one or more search result cards comprises: retrieving, from a user behavior statistics database, the behavior history data associated with the user; and generating an index portion and a content portion for each of the one or more search result cards based on the behavior history data associated with the user.
19. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the operations further comprise: determining at least one priority for presenting information from a search result based on the behavior history data associated with the user, wherein the one or more search result cards are generated such that the information from the search result is presented in accordance with the at least one priority.
20. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the operations further comprise: selecting abstract information associated with each of the one or more search results, wherein the content of each of the one or more search results comprises the abstract information, wherein classifying the content associated with each of the one or more search results into the one or more categories comprises sorting the abstract information into the one or more categories based on the behavior history data associated with the user; and generating a ranking of the one or more information entities based on the behavior history data associated with the user, wherein each search result card is generated based on the ranking of the one or more information entities, wherein generating the one or more search result cards comprises: selecting, for each of the one or more search results, the at least one of the one or more information entities based on the ranking of the one or more information entities, and incorporating the at least one of the one or more information entities associated with the corresponding search result into a corresponding search result card.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of co-pending Application No. 16/018,450, now U.S. Patent 11,003,678. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of corresponding language that recites virtually all of the same elements and functions claimed in the claim 1 of instant application and claim 1 of the copending invention, e.g., “determining whether a search result card in response to the search query is available in a database; and constructing a new search result card based on information from the search results and real-time user behavior.”
The claimed differences would be obvious to a programmer of ordinary skill because the instant claims are merely broader and/or alternate variations of the claims recited in the co-pending application.
Because the instant claims merely add/modify the additional elements from the set of elements and functions claimed in the parent application, such modifications would be readily apparent to a programmer of ordinary skill.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit/add/modify the additional elements of claim 1 to arrive at the claim 1 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before.
It would have been obvious to modify instant claims in order receive an input associated with a search query from a user, and thus improves the user experience by saving the user time.
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 as being unpatentable over English Translation version of CN104111990 (A) issued to Tan Yupei et al. (hereinafter “Yupei”) and further in view of USPGPUB 2015/0261834 issued to Mengchen SHI (hereinafter “SHI”).
With respect to claims 1, 8 and 15, Yupei teaches a method, a program product (CRM) and a system for providing a search result cards (Page 1/6, lines 1 – 5 and Page 5/6, Para 12]), comprising:
receiving a search query from a user (Yupei, Page 2/6, S11: Get the search word entered by the user; the user can enter the search engine search terms, the client from the search engine to obtain the user input search words);
fetching search results of the search query (Yupei, Page 2/6, acquires the search result after the search result corresponding to the search term, the client obtains the search term, the search word can be sent to the server, the server according to the search algorithm to obtain the corresponding search results);
determining whether a search result card in response to the search query is available in a database (Yupei, Page 1/6: provided a search result card for a search result card, comprising: a determination module for acquiring a search word Input by a user; an acquisition module for acquiring a search result corresponding to the search word and a presentation module for displaying the aggregated search result in the search result card).
if the user behavior statistics is up to date, fetching the search result card from the database (Yupei, Page 2/6, S12: retrieving search results that are most directly related to the search term based on the search term. When a user enters a movie name (user behavior statistics) in a search engine of a mobile device, the search result found by the server is a website containing a specific video, and then the website is displayed in a link to the search result card. Click on the search results card to jump to the site and view the video on that site).
Yupei does not explicitly teach if the search result card is available in the database, determining whether user behavior statistics is up to date; and if the user behavior statistics is not up to date, constructing a new search result card based on information from the search results and real-time user behavior.
However, SHI teaches if the search result card is available in the database, determining whether user behavior statistics is up to date (SHI: Page 5/12, S95: the search result card selected by the user, . . ., monitoring user behavior, . . . , record the browsing behavior); and if the user behavior statistics is not up to date, constructing a new search result card based on information from the search results and real-time user behavior (SHI: Page 4/12, S21: in the mobile terminal, each search result card Is displayed in the form of a card, when the user needs to view more content, you can click to enter the selected search results card, each search result card includes two faces, both of which can be used to record information and can be displayed to the user at different times. S22: The mobile terminal displays the first side of the at least one search result card to the user (second side card results not yet available/unavailable) . S23: After the user clicks a preset hot spot area on the first side of the first search result card, the first search result card is turned over and the second side of the first search result card is displayed to the user (claimed real-time)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the teachings of Yupei with the teachings of SHI Mengchen to improve utilization efficiency of search result cards.
Modification would to provide a search result which can make full use of a search result card and obtain more information and improve resource utilization efficiency in a search result card without requiring a page jump.
As to claims 2, 9 and 16, the information from the search results comprises one or more of a title, an image, and a snippet (SHI, Fig. 2 and Para [0054 – 0059]: providing a search result. At step S21, the mobile terminal obtains at least one search result card according to an input search term. The search term may be input by a user. Each of the at least one search result card includes a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, and a search result is recorded on the first surface and/or the second surface. For example, when "flower" is searched, the mobile terminal displays the search result card having "flower" to the user. In the relate art, each search result is displayed on a single surface of a search result card in the mobile terminal. When the user wishes to view more information, he can click the search result card to enter into the selected search result card. Each search result card has two surfaces (the first surface and the second surface) which can be used to record the information and display the information respectively at different times. At step S22, the mobile terminal displays the first surface of each of the at least one search result card on a display).
As to claims 3, 10 and 17, the new search result card comprises an index portion and a content portion (Yupei, Page 2/6, S12: retrieving search results that are most directly related to the search term based on the search term. When a user enters a movie name (user behavior statistics) in a search engine of a mobile device, the search result found by the server is a website containing a specific video, and then the website is displayed in a link to the search result card. Click on the search results card to jump to the site and view the video on that site).
As to claims 4, 11 and 18, selecting the information from the search results; and
constructing the index portion based on the information from the search results and the real-time user behavior (Yupei, Page 2/6, S12: acquires the search result after the search result corresponding to the search term, the client obtains the search term, the search word can be sent to the server, the server according to the search algorithm to obtain the corresponding search results. SHI: Page 4/12, S21: in the mobile terminal, each search result card Is displayed in the form of a card, when the user needs to view more content, you can click to enter the selected search results card, each search result card includes two faces, both of which can be used to record information and can be displayed to the user at different times. S22: The mobile terminal displays the first side of the at least one search result card to the user (second side card results not yet available/unavailable) . S23: After the user clicks a preset hot spot area on the first side of the first search result card, the first search result card is turned over and the second side of the first search result card is displayed to the user (claimed real-time)).
As to claims 5, 12 and 19, selecting a plurality of information entities from the search result; and constructing the content portion based on the plurality of information entities and the real-time user behavior (Yupei, Page 2/6, S12: acquires the search result after the search result corresponding to the search term, the client obtains the search term, the search word can be sent to the server, the server according to the search algorithm to obtain the corresponding search results. SHI: Page 4/12, S21: in the mobile terminal, each search result card is displayed in the form of a card, when the user needs to view more content, you can click to enter the selected search results card, each search result card includes two faces, both of which can be used to record information and can be displayed to the user at different times. S22: The mobile terminal displays the first side of the at least one search result card to the user (second side card results not yet available/unavailable) . S23: After the user clicks a preset hot spot area on the first side of the first search result card, the first search result card is turned over and the second side of the first search result card is displayed to the user (claimed real-time)).
As to claims 6, 13 and 20, the information entities are arranged in an order in which one of the information entities that is more preferred by the user is placed before another one of the information entities that is less preferred by the user (Yupei, Page 2/6: the aggregation is to extract the video In the website, and then the video is displayed directly as a search result in the search result card. The aggregation may be the integration of the contents of the different search results to be provided In the same search result card, for example, the first result in the prior art Is provided in the first search result card, and the second result is provided in the two search results cards, the user may need to view a lot of search results cards to obtain complete information, and integrate the first and second results in the first search result card, so that it is convenient for the user view full Information).
As to claims 7 and 14, generating a ranking of the information entities based on the user's past behavior, wherein the order of the information entities is determined based on the ranking (Yupei, Page 2/6: the aggregation is to extract the video In the website, and then the video is displayed directly as a search result in the search result card. The aggregation may be the integration of the contents of the different search results to be provided In the same search result card, for example, the first result in the prior art is provided in the first search result card, and the second result is provided in the two search results cards, the user may need to view a lot of search results cards to obtain complete information, and integrate the first and second results in the first search result card, so that it is convenient for the user view full Information. (Yupei, Page 2/6, S12: retrieving search results that are most directly related to the search term based on the search term. When a user enters a movie name (user behavior statistics) in a search engine of a mobile device, the search result found by the server is a website containing a specific video, and then the website is displayed in a link to the search result card. Click on the search results card to jump to the site and view the video on that site).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goldentouch (USPGPUB 2011/0082848): involves receiving, from a search engine, information that pertains to a document, where the document is selected by the search engine in response to a search query, and dividing the document into multiple granular elements in response to content of the document and one of query parameters.
Examiner Notes
The examiner has considered the applicant's claims in light of the disclosure. However, the examiner respectfully reminds the applicant that during prosecution before the USPTO, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Office must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any definitions presented in the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575,577(Fed. Cir. 2002)); “[i]t is the claims that measure the invention.” SRIInt’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (enbanc). Written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Electro Med. Sys. S.A. v. Cooper Life Sci., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994))
Note that “limitations appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims, and … interpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.” Intervet Am., v. Kee-Vet Labs., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474 1476 (fed. Cir. 1989).
“The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp,. 415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (fed. Cir. 2005).
“One purpose for examining the specification is to determine if the patentee has limited the scope of the claims.’… For example, an inventor may choose to be his own lexicographer is he defines the specific terms used to describe the invention’ with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Such a definition may appear in the written description, … or in the prosecution history, …” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325, 63 USPQ2d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Prior art pertinent to the disclosed invention is also cited and Applicants are reminded that they must consider all cited art under Rule 111(c) when amending the claims to conform with 35 U.S.C. 112.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHID AL ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4030. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
May 29, 2026
/SHAHID A ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights