Dear inquisitive-ga:
I appreciate all the help you have given and I would like to make sure
your are given the proper pay for your efforts. I am reposting my
questions to you in hopes you can answer it and I can get my patent
granted.
My time is running out as a response to the examiner must be given by
October 24. Please see if you can come up with a resolution to my
problem and get around the barrel shift. I know my invention my be an
advancement on the barrel shift and if I can go this route with the
examiner, then I will. Please let me know.
By the way, I will make sure before this question expires, you are
paid in full with the tip.
---------------------------------------
Repost of question
---------------------------------------
Sorry for the delay in this post. I wanted to make sure I had the
examiner?s response to our patent application before I posted.
Basically, the examiner is stating our patent for orderly rotation of
search results is invalid because of the obvious blend of three prior
patents; Stephens, Davis and Gray.
The Stephens patent deals with breaking aspect of search results into
columns (i.e. title, description, date, size, etc.). He then is able
to sort these search results into ascending and descending order (i.e.
the title of each website can be sorted in terms of A to Z or Z to A).
The Davis patent is the auction method of sorting search results based
on bid value. This is the Goto.com or Overture patent
(www.overture.com).
The Gray patent mentions the barrel shift method which you are very
knowledgeable about and this is where I am stuck.
I can explain the differences between my patent and those of Stephens
and Davis; however, I am stuck with Gray. I don?t believe in my
response to the examiner I was correct in the difference of my patent
and that of a barrel shift and this is where I need your help. I would
like very much if you can read my patent application, the response
from the examiner and let me know how I can get around the barrel
shift method.
I will be checking this post regularly and hopefully I can answer any
questions you might have. Thank you in advance for you help, I greatly
appreciate it.
Gray Patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5822751.WKU.&OS=PN/5822751&RS=PN/5822751
Stephens, Jr. Patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6636853.WKU.&OS=PN/6636853&RS=PN/6636853
Davis Patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6269361.WKU.&OS=PN/6269361&RS=PN/6269361
-------------------
Patent Application:
-------------------
1. A software based method of displaying requested search results
from a dataset based on a user search query, said method comprising
the steps of:
accepting the user search query;
searching the dataset for data that corresponds to the search query
to produce search results;
arranging said search results in a list;
displaying said list in a manner that facilitates review by the user; and
rotating said search results at least one position in said list for
each subsequent search query that results in said list having the same
search results.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein said search results comprise
information corresponding to Internet websites.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein said search results comprise
information corresponding to products available for sale on e-commerce
sites.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein said search results comprise
information corresponding to items available for purchase through
auction sites.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein said search results comprise
information corresponding to online personal advertisements.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein said search results comprise
information corresponding to real estate listings.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein said search results comprise
information corresponding to professionals.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising a step for placing and
maintaining data in the dataset; said data comprising at least one
keyphrase.
9. The method of claim 8, further comprising steps for:
maintaining records of the data in the dataset; and
comparing each said keyphrase to said records.
10. The method of claim 8, wherein the step for placing and
maintaining data further comprises the steps of:
determining if a keyphrase exists in the dataset; and
adding said keyphrase to the dataset if it does not already exist in said dataset.
11. The method of claim 8, wherein the step for placing and
maintaining data further comprises the steps of:
determining if an identified keyphrase already exists in the dataset;
adding a keyphrase record to the dataset for each identified
keyphrase that does not already exist in the dataset;
determining if each identified keyphrase is already related to the
keyphrase record; and
adding a keyphrase relationship record to the dataset for those that
do not already exist.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the keyphrase relationship record
further comprises authenticating data to allow determination of
whether the relationship is active.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein said authenticating data
comprises a creation date and expiration date.
14. The method of claim 12, wherein said authenticating data
comprises a boolean value.
15. The method of claim 1, wherein the searching step further
comprises the steps of:
removing excess white space from the search query;
searching said data for one or more related keyphrase records in the dataset; and
finding one or more data records related to each of the related keyphrase records.
16. The method of claim 15, wherein said related keyphrase records
comprise an exact match of the entered search query or at least one
subset of the entered search query.
17. The method of claim 15, wherein said step of searching related
keyphrase records further comprises the steps of:
searching the keyphrase records for an exact match of the entered keyphrase; and
if an exact match is not found, searching the keyphrase records for
an exact match of said at least one subset.
18. The method of claim 15, wherein the step of finding one or more
data records is limited to keyphrase records which are flagged as
active.
19. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of rotating said search
results comprises:
rotating said search results one position in said list each time said
search results in said list are the same such that said search results
in said list appear in the same order but different positions in said
list and eventually appear in each position in said list when the
number of search queries made equal the number of said search results.
20. The method of claim 11, wherein said rotation step further
comprises the steps of:
obtaining a start value from each of the keyphrase relationship
records located in the search;
incrementing their start values by one;
resetting the start values to one where the revised start values
exceed the corresponding number of keyphrase records found to relate
to each keyphrase; and
arranging each set of related keyphrase records according to the
corresponding start value.
21. The method of claim 20, wherein the step of arranging the
information records further comprises the steps of:
assigning the first position in the list to the information record
whose search retrieval order equals the start value;
assigning the second position in the list to the information record
whose search retrieval order equals the start value plus one, and so
on until the last information record in the search retrieval order is
listed; and
if the start value is greater than the number of information records
in the dataset, assigning the next position in the list to the
information record whose search retrieval order equals one, and so on
until all information records are listed.
22. The method of claim 20, wherein said rotation step is prevented
if the same user enters the same search query during a user session.
23. The method of claim 22, wherein said user session exists for each
user from the time the user first enters a search query until a
configurable lapse of time passes.
24. The method of claim 22, wherein said rotation prevention is
accomplished by not incrementing the start value that corresponds to a
search query that the user already entered.
25. The method of claim 1, wherein the displaying step further
comprises providing a[n appropriate] message when no data
corresponding to said search query is found as a result of the search.
26. A software apparatus comprising processor readable code for
displaying requested search results from a dataset based on a user
search query, said apparatus comprising:
means for accepting at least one user initiated search query;
means for searching the dataset for data that corresponds to the
search query and for producing search results;
means for arranging the search results in a list;
means for displaying said list in a manner that facilitates review by
the user; and
means for rotating said search results at least one position in said
list for each subsequent search query that results in said list having
the same search results.
27. The apparatus of claim 26, further comprising means for placing
and maintaining data in the dataset, said data comprising at least one
keyphrase.
28. The apparatus of claim 27, further comprising:
means for keeping records of the data in the dataset; and
means for comparing said keyphrase to said records.
29. The apparatus of claim 27, wherein the means for placing and
maintaining records further comprises:
means for determining if identified data exists in the dataset; and
means for adding said identified data to the dataset if it does not already exist.
30. The apparatus of claim 27, wherein said means for placing and
maintaining data further comprises:
means for determining if an identified keyphrase already exists in the dataset;
means for adding a keyphrase record to the dataset for each said
identified keyphrase that does not already exist in said dataset;
means for determining if each identified keyphrase is already related
to the keyphrase record; and
means for adding a keyphrase relationship record to the dataset for
those that do not already exist.
31. The apparatus of claim 30, wherein the keyphrase relationship
record further comprises authenticating data to allow determination of
whether the relationship is active.
32. The apparatus of claim 31, wherein said authenticating data
comprises a creation date and expiration date.
33. The apparatus of claim 31, wherein said authenticating data
comprises a boolean value.
34. The apparatus of claim 26, wherein said means for searching further comprises:
means for removing excess white space from the search query;
means for searching for said data for one or more related keyphrase
records in the dataset; and
means for finding one or more data records related to each of the
related keyphrase records.
35. The apparatus of claim 34, wherein said related keyphrase records
comprise an exact match of the entered search query or at least one
subset of the entered search query.
36. The apparatus of claim 35, wherein said means for searching
related keyphrase records further comprises:
means for searching the keyphrase records for an exact match of the
entered keyphrase; and
means for searching the keyphrase records for an exact match of each
of the words that comprise the keyphrase when an exact match of said
keyphrase is not found.
37. The apparatus of claim 34, wherein said means for finding one or
more data records is limited to keyphrase records which are flagged as
active.
38. The apparatus of claim 26, wherein said means for rotating moves
each of said search results in said list one position each time a new
user initiated search query produces the same said search results such
that said search results in said list appear in the same order but
shifted positions and eventually appear in each position in said list
when the number of user initiated search queries equal the number of
said search results.
39. The apparatus of claim 30, wherein said rotation means further comprises:
means for obtaining a start value from each of the keyphrase
relationship records located in the search;
means for incrementing their start values by one;
means for resetting the start values to one where the revised start
values exceed the corresponding number of information records found to
relate to each keyphrase; and
means for arranging each set of related information records according
to the corresponding start value.
40. The apparatus of claim 39, wherein the means for arranging the
information records further comprises:
means for assigning the first position in the list to the information
record whose search retrieval order equals the start value;
means for assigning the second position in the list to the information
record whose search retrieval order equals the start value plus one,
and so on until the last information record in the search retrieval
order is listed; and
if the start value is greater than the number of information records
in the dataset, means for assigning the next position in the list to
the information record whose search retrieval order equals one, and so
on until all information records are listed.
41. The apparatus of claim 39, wherein said rotation means [is
prevented if]comprises a means for not moving said search results in
said list when the same user enters the same keyphrase during a user
session.
42. The apparatus of claim 41, wherein said user session exists for
each user from the time the user first enters the search query until
the lapsing of a predetermined period of time.
43. The apparatus of claim 41, wherein said means for not moving
search results does not increment said start values that correspond to
search queries that the user already entered.
44. The method of claim 1, wherein said rotating step rotates said
search results in a downward direction and moves the search result in
the last position to the first position in said list.
45. The method of claim 1, wherein said rotating step rotates said
search results in an upward direction and moves the search result in
the first position to the last position in said list.
46. The apparatus of claim 26, wherein said means for rotating
rotates said search results in a downward direction and moves the
search result in the last position to the first position in said list.
47. The apparatus of claim 26, wherein said means for rotating rotates
said search results in an upward direction and moves the search result
in the first position to the last position in said list.
REMARKS
The Office Action dated November 25, 2003 has been carefully
considered. Responsive thereto, Applicant has amended claims 1- 43 as
indicated above. Claims 44-47 have been added. Claims 1-47 are
pending. The claims have been amended to clarify the invention and is
considered to be allowable in view of the issues raised by the
Examiner in the Office Action. No new matter has been added.
Reconsideration of the application is respectfully requested.
Applicant notes the Examiner?s comments regarding joint inventors.
Please note that the invention as claimed in all the claims is
commonly owned by all the inventors.
Claims 1 and 26 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stephens, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. 6,636,853), Davis et
al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,269,361), Gray et al. (U.S. Patent No.
5,855,751). It is respectfully submitted that the combined teachings
of the references applied by the Examiner fail to disclose or suggest
the subject matter of the claims at issue. Stephens, Jr., Davis et
al., and Gray et al., individually and collectively, are structurally
and functionally distinct from Applicant?s claimed invention and with
respect to each other and fail to render the claimed invention
obvious. In addition, Stephens, Jr., Davis et al., and Gray et al.
fail to suggest the combination and the desirability for the
modification suggested by the Examiner. Moreover, even if the
teachings of said references could be combined and modified as
proffered, they would still fail to render Applicant?s claimed
invention unpatentable.
Applicant?s claimed invention comprises a rotating search engine that
arranges search results in a list and rotates the results to a new
position each time a search request produces the same results, as
shown in the following example. Assume a first search query is made
for ?car sales? and produces the following results:
1. Sam?s Used Cars at www.samscars.com;
2. Tim?s Car Sales at www.timscars.com;
3. Cheap Cars at www.cheapcars.com;
4. Mel?s Cars at www.melscars.com;
In accordance with Applicant?s claimed invention, the next search
query that produces the same search results as noted above, would
appear as follows:
1. Tim?s Car Sales at www.timscars.com;
2. Cheap Cars at www.cheapcars.com;
3. Mel?s Cars at www.melscars.com;
4. Sam?s Used Cars at www.samscars.com;
Again in accordance with Applicant?s claimed invention, the next
search query that produces the same search results would be listed as
follows:
1. Cheap Cars at www.cheapcars.com;
2. Mel?s Cars at www.melscars.com;
3. Sam?s Used Cars at www.samscars.com;
4. Tim?s Car Sales at www.timscars.com;
As is readily apparent, the search results in the search list rotate
each time a search query is the same or produces the same results. It
is important to note that the search results may rotate in either
direction. The search results may change positions in an upward
direction with the first search result moving to the last position or
in a downward direction with the last search result moving to the
first position. The foregoing claimed invention is not taught or
suggested in the prior art of record. Accordingly, Applicant submits
that claims 1 and 26 are allowable and since claims 1 and 26 are
allowable independent claims, all claims depending therefrom are
allowable.
Stephens, Jr., Davis et al., and Gray et al., individually and
collectively, fail to disclose or suggest Applicant?s claimed
invention. Stephens, Jr. is a data mining search engine that lists
search results based on relevancy wherein keywords are assigned or
unassigned to websites based on relevancy factors and ratings assigned
to keywords. Stephens, Jr. does not affect positioning of search
results at all, it only affects the keywords that are assigned to
websites.
Davis et al. discloses a search engine that arranges search results
based on a competitive bidding process and assigned rank values based
on bids made. Davis et al. does not teach rotating search results
each time a query results in the same search results. In fact, it
does the complete opposite of Applicant?s claimed invention and is
precisely the type of prior art Applicant?s claimed invention is
intended to overcome. Davis et al. system allows a registered web
site to retain or keep its position in listed search results by
continuously maintaining the highest bid amount over the other
registered web sites. Therefore, a web site could be listed first for
all searches performed with Davis? et al. system by always maintaining
the highest bid amount. Davis et al. does not teach rotating search
results each time a query results in the same search results as
claimed by Applicant. The Applicant?s claimed invention does not
arrange search results based upon monetary value or bid amounts and
cannot be influenced by monetary value or any of the methods used by
search engines of the prior art to influence search list positioning.
The positions of the displayed search results for the Applicant?s
claimed invention change with each search performed for the same
respective keyword. A web site is never listed more then once in first
position of the search results until all web sites for the respective
keyword have rotated through the search results set and each website
received the first position.
Gray et al. discloses a data aggregation system and method that
reports data in a list based on different queries that produce
different results and uses the barrel shift to remove data from the
list. When barrel shifting a set of attributes, such as 1,2,3,4,5;
the left most attribute is dropped from the set. Barrel shifting the
set 1,2,3,4,5 would result in the set containing the attributes
2,3,4,5. By contrast, Applicant?s claimed invention performs a true
rotation with the attributes of a set. In the claimed invention, the
left most attribute is moved to the right most attribute of the set,
not dropped from the set as with ?barrel shifting.? When performing a
true rotation of the set 1,2,3,4,5; the claimed invention takes the
left most attribute (in this case ?1?) and moves it to the right most
attribute (i.e. ?5?), resulting in the set of attributes comprising
2,3,4,5,1. The next set of results would then be 3,4,5,1,2. In
addition, Gray et al. does not maintain the same list as its lists are
always changing. By contrast, Applicant?s claimed invention maintains
the same list and rotates the search results one position every time a
search query produces the same list of results. Accordingly, Gray et
al. is simply distinct from Applicant?s claimed invention.
It is readily apparent, that the Stephens, Jr., Davis et al. and Gray
et al. are completely different with respect to each other, and do not
disclose Applicant?s claimed invention, thus failing to suggest or
motivate the proffered combination. Even if it were possible to
combine the references, the combination would fail to disclose or
suggest Applicant?s claimed invention. Accordingly, Stephens, Jr.,
Davis et al. and Gray et al. do not render Applicant?s claimed
invention obvious.
As the prior art cited fails to suggest or motivate the combination of
the cited references, the claimed invention is not rendered obvious.
It is axiomatic that in order to justify combination of references it
is not only necessary that it be physically possible to combine them,
but the art must contain something to suggest the desirability of
doing so. Ex parte Walker, 135 U.S.P.Q. 195 (1961). "Before the PTO
may combine the disclosures of two or more prior art references in
order to establish prima facie obviousness, there must be some
suggestion for doing so.? In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ.2d
1596, 1598-99 (Fed. Cir. 1988)." Even if the prior art may be modified
as suggested by the Examiner, the modification is not obvious unless
the prior art suggests the desirability for the modification. In re
Fritch, 922 F.2d 1260, 23 USPQ.2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In fact, the
requisite motivating suggestion must be explicit. Winner
International Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 48 USPQ.2d 1139 (D.C. 1998)
(??there must have been some explicit teaching or suggestion in the
art to motivate one of even ordinary skill to combine such elements so
as to create the same invention."). The Examiner must identify where
the prior art provides a motivating suggestion for the combination.
In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ.2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Moreover, it is improper to use the inventor?s disclosure as an
instruction book on how to reconstruct the prior art. Panduit Corp.
v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1 USPQ.2d 1593 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
During prosecution, an examiner may often find every element of a
claimed invention in the prior art. If identification of each claimed
element in the prior art were sufficient to negate patentability, very
few patents would ever issue. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810
F.2d 1561, 1 USPQ.2d 1593 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (A holding that claims are
invalid based merely upon finding similar elements in separate prior
art patents would be contrary to statute and would defeat the
congressional purpose in enacting Title 35). As the Federal Circuit
has often stated, ?virtually all [inventions] are combinations of old
elements.? Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d
693, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The various references cited by the
Examiner fail to teach or suggest the presently claimed invention,
either alone or in combination, and the proffered modification. In
addition, the cited references fail to teach or suggest the
desirability of the combined teachings relied on by the Examiner.
Accordingly, the proposed combinations are improper and fail to
support rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Applicants also rely on the decision of the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit in Carella v. Starlight Archery, 231 USPQ 644. One of
the issues in Carella was the obviousness of the invention over the
prior art. The CAFC noted that the Court below had acknowledged that
use of vertical height for range finding, use of multiple elements on
a sight and use of circular apertures were each known in the art, but
concluded that the prior art lacked any teaching or suggestion to
combine the separate features in a manner permitting use of circular
apertures for simultaneous range finding. Obvious cannot be
established by combining the teachings of the prior art to produced
the claimed invention absent some teaching, suggestion or incentive
supporting the combination. ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore
Hospital, 723 F.2d 1572, 221 USPQ 929 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In view of the amendments and arguments presented herein it is
believed that that claims 1-47 are patentably distinguishable over the
prior art. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully requests a favorable
action on this case.
--------------------
Examiner?s Response:
--------------------
Applicants? arguments filed 28 April 2004 have been fully considered
but they are not persuasive. In the first argument for independent
claims 1 and 26, at page 21, paragraph 2, the Applicants state:
?Stephens, Jr. does not affect positioning of search results at all;
it only affects the keywords that are assigned to websites.?
The Examiner disagrees. Stephens teaches the positioning of search
results at col. 3, lines 8-10.
In the second argument for independent claims 1 and 26, at page 21,
paragraph 3, the Applicants state:
?Davis et al. does not teach rotating search results each time a query
results in the same search results.?
The Examiner agrees. Davis does not teach rotating search results each
time a query results in the same search results. However, Gray teaches
?rotating search results? at col. 5, lines 38-42 and col. 2, lines
23-26 and ?each time a query results in the same search results? at
col. 13, lines 37-40.
In the third argument for independent claims 1 and 26, at page 22,
paragraph 2, the Applicants state?
?Gray et al. discloses a data aggregation system and method that
reports data in a list based on different queries that produce
different results and uses the barrel shift to remove data from the
list. When barrel shifting a set of attributes, such as 1, 2, 3 4, 5;
the left most attribute is dropped from the set. Barrel shifting the
set 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 would result in the set containing the attributes 2,
3, 4, 5. By contrast, the applicants claim invention performs a true
rotation with the attributes of a set in the claims invention, the
left most attribute is moved to the right most attribute of the set,
not dropped from the set as with ?barrel shifting.? When performing a
true rotation of the set 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; the claim invention takes the
leftmost attribute (in this case?1?) and moves to the right most
attribute (i.e. ?5?), resulting in the set of attributes compromising
2, 3, 4, 5, 1.
The examiner disagrees. Stephens teaches the rotation of a queue as follows:
?? In a preferred embodiment, barrel shifting is the process of left
shift rotating the original n attribute by one attribute position so
that the previous leftmost attribute is now in a hidden rightmost
attribute position?? at col. 5, lines 38-41.
The barrel shift results in the rightmost position being hidden not
dropped or eliminated. This visibility of this position may become
restored thus providing ac completely visible set of attributes
compromising 2, 3, 4, 5, 1.
37. In the fourth argument for independent claims 1 and 26 at page 23,
paragraph 1 the applicant states:
?As the prior art cited and fails to suggest or motivate the
combination of the cited references, the claimed invention is not
rendered obvious. It is axiomatic that in order to justify combination
of references is not only necessary that it be physically possible to
combine them, by the art must contain something to suggest the
desirability of doing so.?
The examiner disagrees. This office action states that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to
combine Davis with Stephens to provide for subsequent searches of the
same query in order to allow a user to repeat an earlier query and to
allow a second user to repeat the query performed by the first user to
provide reproducibility for accepts of the system. Likewise, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the
invention to combine Gray with Stephens and Davis to rotate results
queues in order to assist in the determination of which result sets
are complete. This justification for rotating results queues is
provided in the Gray reference. |
