IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Docket No.: 0290672.00l28US2
`
`(PATENT)
`
`Applicant:
`
`Murali ARAVAMUDAN et al. Confirmation No.:
`
`5356
`
`Application No.: 11/246,432
`
`Art Unit:
`
`2169
`
`Filed:
`
`Title:
`
`October 7, 2005
`
`Examiner:
`
`H. Wong
`
`METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INCREMENTAL SEARCH WITH
`
`REDUCED TEXT ENTRY WHERE THE RELEVANCE OF RESULTS
`
`IS A DYNAMICLALLY COMPUTED FUNCTION OF USER INPUT
`
`SEARCH STRING CHARACTER COUNT
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`AMENDMENT IN RESPONSE TO NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. 1.111
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
`
`In response to the Non-Final Office Action dated March 7, 201 1, please amend the above-
`
`identified U.S. patent application as follows:
`
`Amendments to the Claims are reflected in the listing of claims which begins on page 2 of
`
`this paper.
`
`Remarks/Arguments begin on page 8 of this paper.
`
`US1 DOCS 7985925v1
`
`Comcast, Exhibit-1111
`
`Comcast, Exhibit-1111
`
`1
`
`

`

`Application No. l l/246,432
`Amendment dated July 6, 201 1
`Reply to Office Action of March 7, 2011
`
`Docket No.: 029067200 1 28US2
`
`AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS
`
`Claims 1-33 (Cancelled)
`
`34.
`
`(Currently Amended) A method of processing a search request received from a user
`
`operating a hand-held text input device, the search request directed at identifying a desired item
`
`from a set of items, each of the items having one or more associated terms, the method comprising:
`
`providing the set of items, the items having assigned popularity values to indicate a relative
`
`measure of a likelihood that the item is desired by the user;
`
`for each item, associating a set of terms to describe the item and assigning a relevance value
`
`for each term based on a relevance of the term in identifying the item;
`
`receiving text on the hand-held text input device entered by the user, the text having one or
`
`more text characters of one or more prefixes for terms the user is using to identify a
`
`desired item;
`
`in response to receiving a text character, performing a first incremental find to compare the
`
`one or more user-entered prefixes with the terms associated with the items and to
`
`retrieve the relevance values for the one or more user-entered prefixes matching
`
`terms associated with the items;
`
`determining a first ranking order of items found in the first incremental find based at least in
`
`part on the retrieved relevance values and the assigned popularity values of the items
`
`found in the first incremental find;
`
`ordering and presenting one or more items to the user found in the first incremental find
`
`based on the first ranking order;
`
`in response to receiving at least one subsequent text character, performing a second
`
`incremental find to compare the one or more user-entered prefixes, including the at
`
`least one subsequent text character and any preceding text characters, with the terms
`
`associated with the items and to retrieve the relevance values for said one or more
`
`user-entered prefixes matching terms associated with the items;
`
`USIDOCS 7985925vl
`
`2
`
`

`

`Application No. l l/246,432
`Amendment dated July 6, 201 1
`Reply to Office Action of March 7, 2011
`
`Docket No.: 0290672.00 l 28US2
`
`determining a count of the number of characters of text received from the user;
`
`adjusting the relevance value assigned to at least one of the terms associated with one or
`
`more of the items retrieved in response to the one or more user-entered prefixes
`
`based on the count of the number of text characters received fiom the user;
`
`determining a second ranking order of the items found in the second incremental find based
`
`at least in part on the adjusted relevance values and the assigned popularity values of
`
`the items found in the second incremental find; and
`
`ordering and presenting one or more items to the user based on the second ranking order so
`
`that the relative order of the items found in both the first and second incremental
`
`finds is adjusted as characters are entered.
`
`35.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 34, further comprising the terms associated with
`
`the items being organized into searchable subspace categories, each subspace category having a
`
`relevance bias value, wherein at least one of determining the first ranking order and determining the
`
`second ranking order is further based on the relevance bias values of the subspace categories.
`
`36.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 35, wherein the relevance bias values are based
`
`on the count of the number of text characters received fiom the user.
`
`37.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 35, wherein the subspace categories include a
`
`personalized history category containing terms associated with items identified from previous
`
`incremental finds conducted by the user.
`
`38.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 35, wherein the ordering and presenting of one
`
`or more items is limited to items having associated terms of one or more selected subspace
`
`categories.
`
`39.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 38, wherein the one or more selected subspace
`
`categories are selected based on the count of the number of text characters received from the user.
`
`40.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 35, wherein the ordered and presented one or
`
`more items are presented on a display device, the display device having display space allocated
`
`USIDOCS 7985925vl
`
`3
`
`3
`
`

`

`Application No. l l/246,432
`Amendment dated July 6, 201 1
`Reply to Office Action of March 7, 2011
`
`according to the subspace categories.
`
`Docket No.: 0290672.00 l 28US2
`
`41.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 34, wherein the hand-held text input device
`
`includes a set of overloaded keys generating an ambiguous text input.
`
`42.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 41, wherein the hand-held text input device is a
`
`phone, a mobile computing device, or a remote control device for a television.
`
`43.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 34, wherein the ordered and presented one or
`
`more items are presented on a display constrained device.
`
`44.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 43, wherein the display device is a phone, a
`
`mobile computing device, or a non-intrusive interface display area of a television.
`
`45.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 34, wherein the assigned popularity values of
`
`one or more items of the set of items is based on a relative measure of popular opinion of the item.
`
`46.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 34, wherein the assigned popularity values of
`
`one or more items of the set of items is based on a temporal relevance of the items or a location
`
`relevance of the items.
`
`47.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 34, wherein at least one of determining the first
`
`ranking order and determining the second ranking order is further based on the number of prefixes
`
`of the received text.
`
`48.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 34, wherein a portion of the set of items resides
`
`on a computer remote fiom the user.
`
`49.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 34, wherein a computer remote from the user
`
`performs at least one of the steps of receiving text entered by the user, performing the first
`
`incremental find, determining the first ranking order, performing the second incremental find,
`
`determining the count of the number of characters of text received, adjusting the relevance values of
`
`the terms associated with the items, and determining the second ranking order.
`
`USIDOCS 7985925vl
`
`4
`
`4
`
`

`

`Application No. l l/246,432
`Amendment dated July 6, 201 1
`Reply to Office Action of March 7, 2011
`
`Docket No.: 0290672.00l28US2
`
`50.
`
`(Currently Amended) A system for processing a search request received from a user
`
`operating a hand-held text input device, the search request directed at identifying a desired item
`
`from a set of items, each of the items having one or more associated terms, the system comprising:
`
`a first memory for storing at least a first portion of the set of items, the items having
`
`assigned popularity values to indicate a relative measure of a likelihood that the item
`
`is desired by the user, and each item being associated with a set of terms to describe
`
`the item, each term being assigned a relevance value based on a relevance of an
`
`informational content of the term in identifying the item;
`
`a device input for receiving text entered by the user on a hand-held text input device, the text
`
`having two or more text characters of one or more prefixes for terms the user is using
`
`to identify a desired item, the two or more text characters including a first text
`
`portion and a second text portion, the second text portion being received subsequent
`
`to the first text portion;
`
`a processor for performing a first incremental find in response to receiving the first text
`
`portion and for ordering one or more items found in the first incremental find based
`
`on a first ranking order, the first incremental find comparing the one or more user-
`
`entered prefixes with the terms associated with the items and retrieving the relevance
`
`values for the one or more user-entered prefixes matching terms associated with the
`
`items, the first ranking order of the one or more items found in the first incremental
`
`find being based on the assigned popularity values of the items and being based on
`
`the retrieved relevance values for the one or more user-entered prefixes matching
`
`terms associated with the items, so that relatively more popular and more relevant
`
`items appear earlier in the order for user selection or activation, the processor also for
`
`performing a second incremental find in response to receiving the second text portion
`
`and for ordering one or more items found in the second incremental find based on a
`
`second ranking order, the second incremental find comparing the one or more user-
`
`entered prefixes with the terms associated with the items and retrieving the relevance
`
`values for the one or more user-entered prefixes matching terms associated with the
`
`items, the second ranking order of the one or more items found in the second
`
`USIDOCS 7985925vl
`
`5
`
`

`

`Application No. l l/246,432
`Amendment dated July 6, 201 1
`Reply to Office Action of March 7, 2011
`
`Docket No.: 029067200 1 28US2
`
`incremental find being based on the assigned popularity values of the items and
`
`being based on adjusted relevance values for the one or more user-entered prefixes
`
`matching terms associated with the items, the relevance values of the terms
`
`associated with the items being adjusted in response to the count of the number of
`
`text characters received fiom the user, and the order of at least a portion of the one or
`
`more items being changed based on the adjusted relevance values of the terms; and
`
`a device output for presenting at least one of the first and the second ordered one or more
`
`items to the user.
`
`51.
`
`(Previously Presented) The system of claim 50, further comprising the terms associated with
`
`the items being organized into searchable subspace categories, each subspace category having a
`
`relevance bias value, wherein at least one of the first and second ordering the one or more items is
`
`further based on the relevance bias values of the subspace categories.
`
`52.
`
`(Previously Presented) The system of claim 51, wherein the relevance bias values are based
`
`on the count of the number of text characters received fiom the user.
`
`53.
`
`(Previously Presented) The system of claim 51, wherein the subspace categories include a
`
`personalized history category containing terms associated with items identified from previous
`
`incremental finds conducted by the user.
`
`54.
`
`(Previously Presented) The system of claim 51, wherein the incremental find is limited to
`
`items having associated descriptive terms of one or more selected subspace categories.
`
`55.
`
`(Previously Presented) The system of claim 54, wherein the one or more selected subspace
`
`categories are selected based on the count of the number of text characters received from the user.
`
`56.
`
`(Previously Presented) The system of claim 51, further comprising a display device for
`
`presenting the at least one of the first and the second ordered one or more items, the display device
`
`having display space allocated according to the subspace categories.
`
`57.
`
`(Previously Presented) The system of claim 50, wherein the text entered by the user on the
`
`USIDOCS 7985925vl
`
`6
`
`6
`
`

`

`Application No. l l/246,432
`Amendment dated July 6, 201 1
`Reply to Office Action of March 7, 2011
`
`Docket No.: 0290672.00 l 28US2
`
`hand-held text input device includes a set of overloaded keys generating an ambiguous text input.
`
`58.
`
`(Previously Presented) The system of claim 57, wherein the hand-held text input device is a
`
`phone, a mobile computing device, or a remote control device for a television.
`
`59.
`
`(Previously Presented) The system of claim 50, further comprising a display constrained
`
`device for presenting the at least one of the first and the second ordered one or more items.
`
`60.
`
`(Previously Presented) The system of claim 59, wherein the display device is a phone, a
`
`mobile computing device, or a non-intrusive interface display area of a television.
`
`61.
`
`(Previously Presented) The system of claim 50, wherein the assigned popularity value of one
`
`or more items of the set of items is based on a relative measure of popular opinion of the item.
`
`62.
`
`(Previously Presented) The system of claim 50, wherein the assigned popularity value of one
`
`or more items of the set of items is based on a temporal relevance of the item or a location relevance
`
`of the item.
`
`63.
`
`(Previously Presented) The system of claim 50, wherein at least one of the first ranking
`
`order and the second ranking order of the one or more items is further based on a count of the
`
`number of prefixes of the received text.
`
`64.
`
`(Previously Presented) The system of claim 50, further comprising a second memory on a
`
`computer remote from the user for storing at least a second portion of the set of items.
`
`65.
`
`(Previously Presented) The system of claim 50, wherein the processor is disposed in a
`
`computer remote from the user.
`
`USIDOCS 7985925vl
`
`7
`
`

`

`Application No. l l/246,432
`Amendment dated July 6, 201 1
`Reply to Office Action of March 7, 2011
`
`Docket No.: 0290672.00 l 28US2
`
`REMARKS
`
`This Amendment is filed in response to the Non-Final Office Action dated March 7, 2011.
`
`Claims 34-65 were pending in the application. Claims 34 and 50 have been amended. No claims
`
`have been cancelled or added. We respectfully request reconsideration of the application in view of
`
`the following remarks.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claims 34 and 50 were objected to due to inforrnalities. We have amended these claims and
`
`respectfully request reconsideration.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 1031a)
`
`Claims 34-40, 43, 45-56, 59, and 61-65 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) as being
`
`obvious over U.S. Pat. No. 6,480,837 to Dutta (herein “Dutta”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub.
`
`2005/0283468 by Kamvar et al. (herein “Kamvar”), and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub.
`
`2005/0256846 by Zigmond et al. (herein “Zigmond”).
`
`The rejection of the above-mentioned claims is based on a claim interpretation in which the
`
`Examiner interprets the limitation “adjusting the relevance value assigned to at least one of the
`
`terms associated with one or more of the items retrieved in response to the user-entered prefixes
`
`based on the count of the number of text characters received from the user” of claim 34 to mean that
`
`“It is the user-entered prefixes that is based on said count of the number of text characters.” See
`
`Office Action at pg. 3 (emphasis in the original). We submit this interpretation is incorrect for the
`
`reasons that follow.
`
`First, it is common practice in method claims to recite a step of performing an action based
`
`on a determined value. Thus, we submit that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`the limitation to mean that it is the relevance values that are adjusted, and this adjustment is based
`
`on the count 01 the number 01 text characters received (ram the user. More specifically, the
`
`relevance values that are adjusted are those that are assigned to at least one of the terms associated
`
`with one or more of the items retrieved in response to the user-entered prefixes.
`
`USIDOCS 7985925vl
`
`8
`
`

`

`Application No. l l/246,432
`Amendment dated July 6, 201 1
`Reply to Office Action of March 7, 2011
`
`Docket No.: 0290672.00 l 28US2
`
`Second, the Examiner’s proposed interpretation is contrary to the other limitations recited in
`
`claim 34. For example, (1) the second element establishes that relevance values are assigned to
`
`terms that are associated with the items and (2) the fourth element requires retrieving those
`
`relevance values for the one or more user-entered prefixes matching terms associated with the items.
`
`Thus, these two elements provide the antecedent basis for the claim term “the relevance value
`
`assigned to at least one of the terms associated with one or more of the items retrieved in response
`
`to the one or more user-entered prefixes” that appears in the limitation in question. In other words,
`
`the claim term “the relevance value assigned to at least one of the terms associated with one or more
`
`of the items retrieved in response to the one or more user-entered prefixes” is specifically
`
`identifying which relevance values are to be adjusted.
`
`Third, the Examiner’s proposed interpretation is inconsistent with the specification. The
`
`specification clearly describes that the user-entered prefixes are provided by the user to find desired
`
`items. See W 27, 32-33, and 38. The user is not basing the prefixes on the count of the number of
`
`text characters of the prefix. If anything, the user is merely basing the prefixes on what the user
`
`seeks. Thus, we submit it is inconsistent with the specification to assign the meaning proposed by
`
`the Examiner to this claim term. Moreover, claim 34 clearly states that the method receives text
`
`entered by the user, and the text has one or more text characters of one or more prefixes for terms
`
`the user is using to identify a desired item. See claim 34 at 3rd element.
`
`Because the interpretation of claim 34 is incorrect, the Examiner’s position that certain
`
`elements of claim 34 are found in the cited references is also incorrect when the correct claim
`
`interpretation is applied. Specifically, the cited references do not teach or suggest the claim
`
`elements “determining a count of the number of characters of text received fiom the user” and
`
`“adjusting the relevance value assigned to at least one of the terms associated with one or more of
`
`the items retrieved in response to the one or more user-entered prefixes based on the count of the
`
`number of text characters received from the user”.
`
`The Office Action states that, “Dutta further discloses adjusting the relevance value assigned
`
`to at least one of the terms associated with one or more of the items retrieved in response to the
`
`user-entered prefixes based on the number of text characters received fiom the user” (emphasis
`
`USIDOCS 7985925vl
`
`9
`
`

`

`Application No. l l/246,432
`Amendment dated July 6, 201 1
`Reply to Office Action of March 7, 2011
`
`Docket No.: 0290672.00 l 28US2
`
`added) reasoning that “number can be interpreted as a group of one kind.” See Office Action at pg.
`
`6-7. The Examiner continues, stating “Zigmond discloses determining a count of the number of
`
`characters of text received from the user and prefixes based on the count.” See Office Action at pg.
`
`10. However, as set forth in detail above, this analysis is based on an erroneous interpretation of the
`
`language of the claim. We submit that the Examiner’s position that “number can be interpreted as a
`
`group of one kind” is no longer relevant in view of the proper interpretation of the language of
`
`claim 34 because the claim term “number” does not stand alone in the claim. Rather, the claim
`
`requires adjusting the relevance value based on the count of the number of text characters. None of
`
`the references alone or in combination teach or suggest this limitation.
`
`Dutta does not teach or suggest adjusting the relevance value assigned to at least one term
`
`associated with an item based on the count of the number of text characters received from the user
`
`as part of a search string to identify a desired item. Rather, Dutta discloses adjusting popularity
`
`weights associated with an item up or down depending on whether the item is selected from a list of
`
`possible search results. See Dutta at col. 4, lns. 31-67. Dutta explains that, “Only after selection is
`
`the popularity weight for the selected URL/keyword pair adjusted upward.” See Dutta at col. 5, lns.
`
`55-56 (emphasis added). In other words, any adjustment to any relevance values or popularity
`
`weighting in Dutta is done after the selection and not as part of the search process based on user
`
`input. Moreover, any popularity adjustment is done based on selection of the item and not based on
`
`user search input.
`
`Meanwhile, whether or not Zigmond discloses determining a count of the number of
`
`characters of text received from the user, which it does not, Zigmond does not teach or suggest
`
`adjusting the relevance value assigned to at least one term associated with an item based on the
`
`count of the number of text characters received from the user as part of a search string to identify a
`
`desired item. Moreover, Zigmond is silent regarding the use of variable relevance values for the
`
`purpose of ordering items found during an incremental find. Rather, Zigmond merely organizes
`
`programming titles into sparse subsets of all titles, the size of which is based on the number of
`
`display entries of a display screen associated with a client device. See Zigmond at 1] l7.
`
`USIDOCS 7985925vl
`
`l0
`
`10
`
`10
`
`

`

`Application No. l l/246,432
`Amendment dated July 6, 201 1
`Reply to Office Action of March 7, 20ll
`
`Docket No.: 0290672.00 l 28US2
`
`Specifically, Zigmond discloses presenting an initial sparse subset corresponding to an
`
`initial character input and prefetching a second sparse subset of titles that have the initial input
`
`character as their initial character. When a user inputs a second character, the portion of the second
`
`sparse subset corresponding to the second and first characters is presented. See Zigmond at 111] l7-
`
`l9. Zigmond uses the nomenclature “zero-character prefix”, “one-character prefix”, “two-character
`
`prefix”, and so on to describe corresponding indexes. See Zigmond at W 39-40. However,
`
`Zigmond is not counting the number of characters entered by the user to determine which index to
`
`provide. Rather, Zigmond matches the characters of the user’s input to characters associated with
`
`the indexes to determine which set of program titles to display. See Zigmond at flfll 42-48.
`
`In contrast, claim 34 requires determining a count of a number of characters of text received
`
`from the user, and adjusting the relevance value assigned to at least one term associated with items
`
`based on the count of the number of text characters received from the user. Thus, the invention set
`
`forth in claim 34 adjusts the relevance value of terms independent of the selection of items, but,
`
`rather, based on a count of the number of text characters received from the user. As explained
`
`above, one of skill in the art would understand “count of the number of text characters” to mean a
`
`numerical value and not “group of one kind” as suggested by the examiner. Consequently, the
`
`relative positions of the individual search results within the presentation order can be adjusted as the
`
`user is entering characters of the prefix text entry. This, for example, enables search results having
`
`a relatively lower popularity rating to be ranked more preferably in the presentation order as the
`
`number of characters entered by the user increases. See Application at 111] 40-43.
`
`As set forth above, the cited references do not teach or suggest adjusting the relevance value
`
`assigned to at least one of the terms associated with one or more of the items retrieved in response
`
`to the one or more user-entered prefixes based on a count of the number of text characters received
`
`from the user. Moreover, the cited references lack using the adjusted relevance values to change the
`
`relative order of items that remain in the search results as the search proceeds. As we explain in our
`
`application, ordering the search results based only on their popularities causes highly popular results
`
`to monopolize the most desirable positions in the presentation order, thereby “occluding” less
`
`popular results. This occurs despite the fact that the user has been presented with the popular
`
`USIDOCS 7985925vl
`
`ll
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`

`Application No. l l/246,432
`Amendment dated July 6, 201 1
`Reply to Office Action of March 7, 2011
`
`Docket No.: 0290672.00 l 28US2
`
`results, has elected not to select the popular results, and continues to enter additional characters in
`
`the search text. This problem is especially troublesome when the search results are being presented
`
`on hand-held, display-constrained device (e. g., PDA or mobile telephone). See Application at 1] 43.
`
`Unlike the cited references, our claim 34 clearly recites retrieving relevance values assigned
`
`to terms associated with incrementally found items and adjusting the relevance values based on a
`
`count of the number of text characters received from the user. Incrementally found items are
`
`initially ordered based at least in part on the retrieved relevance values and then reordered and
`
`presented to the user based at least in part on a weighing of these adjusted relevance values. The
`
`application describes the discovery of the occlusion problem and the advantages of the solutions
`
`devised by the inventors. Namely, by basing the ordering of the search results in part on a count of
`
`the number of text characters received from the user, search results desired by the user can be found
`
`with less overall text entered by the user. See Application at 111] 40-43.
`
`None of this is taught or suggested by the cited references. Therefore, we submit that claim
`
`34 is patentable over the cited references. Claims 35-40, 43, 45-49 depend from claim 34 and,
`
`therefore include the limitations of claim 34. Thus, we submit these claims are also patentable over
`
`the cited references for the reasons given above.
`
`Independent claim 50 recites adjusting the relevance values of the terms associated with
`
`items in response to a count of the number of text characters received from the user and changing
`
`the order of at least a portion of the one or more items based on the adjusted relevance values of the
`
`terms associated with the items as the search proceeds. Thus, we submit that claim 50 is patentable
`
`over the cited references for the reasons provided above in connection with claim 34.
`
`Claims 51-56, 59, and 61-65 depend from claim 50 and, therefore include the limitations of
`
`claim 50. Thus, we submit these claims are also patentable over the cited references for the reasons
`
`given above.
`
`Claims 41-42, 44 and 57-58, and 60 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) as being
`
`obvious over Dutta in view of Kamvar and Zigmond, and in further view of U.S. Pat. Pub.
`
`2004/0021691 by Dostie et al. (herein “Dostie”).
`
`USIDOCS 7985925vl
`
`l2
`
`12
`
`12
`
`

`

`Application No. l l/246,432
`Amendment dated July 6, 201 1
`Reply to Office Action of March 7, 20ll
`
`Docket No.: 0290672.00 l 28US2
`
`The Office Action relies on the combination of Dutta, Kamvar, and Zigmond to supply the
`
`limitations of independent claim 34 and turns to Dostie for the additional limitations found in the
`
`dependent claims. As set forth in detail above, we submit that the Office Action fails to provide a
`
`prima facie case against claims 34 are 50. Claims 41-42 and 44 depend from claim 34 and,
`
`therefore include the limitations of claim 34. Claims 57-58 and 60 depend from claim 50 and,
`
`therefore include the limitations of claim 50. Therefore, we submit these claims are also patentable
`
`over the cited references for the reasons given above.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In view of the above amendment, we submit the pending application is in condition for
`
`allowance. We sincerely invite the Examiner to contact the undersigned to discuss any concerns
`
`that may remain after consideration of this Amendment.
`
`A request for a one-month extension of time and authorization to charge the fees associated
`
`therewith accompany this request. We believe no other fee is due with this response. However, if a
`
`fee is due, please charge our Deposit Account No. 08-0219, under Order No. 0290672.00l28US2
`
`from which the undersigned is authorized to draw.
`
`Dated: July 6, 2011
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/John V. Hobgood/
`John V. Hobgood
`Registration No.: 61,540
`Attorney for Applicant(s)
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`
`(617) 526-6000 (telephone)
`(617) 526-5000 (facsimile)
`
`USIDOCS 7985925vl
`
`l3
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`

`PTO/SB/22 (07-09)
`Approved for use through 07/31/2012. OMB 0651-0031
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless if displays a valid OMB control number.
`
`PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME UNDER 37 CFR1.136(a)
`FY 2009
`(Fees pursuant to the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act, 2005 (H.R. 4818).)
`
`Docket Number (Optional)
`0290672.00128US2
`
`October 7, 2005
`Filed
`11/246,432-Conf. #5356
`Application Number
`METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INCREMENTAL SEARCH WITH REDUCED TEXT ENTRY WHERE THE
`RELEVANCE OF RESULTS IS A DYNAMICALLY COMPUTED FUNCTION OF USER INPUT SEARCH
`STRING CHARACTER COUNT
`
`For
`
`Art Unit
`
`2169
`
`Examiner
`
`H. Wong
`
`This is a request under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) to extend the period for filing a reply in the above identified
`application.
`
`The requested extension and fee are as follows (check time period desired and enter the appropriate fee below):
`
`One month (37 CFR1.17(a)(1))
`D Two months (37 CFR 1.17(a)(2))
`|:| Three months (37 CFR 1.17(a)(3))
`D Four months (37 CFR1.17(a)(4))
`D Five months (37 CFR 1.17(a)(5))
`
`1
`$130
`$490
`$1110
`$1730
`$2350
`
`Small Entity Fee
`$55
`$245
`$555
`$355
`$1175
`
`55.00
`
`I: Applicant claims small entity status. See 37 CFR 1.27.
`I: A check in the amount of the fee is enclosed.
`I: Payment by credit card.
`I: The Director has already been authorized to charge fees in this application to a Deposit Account.
`I: The Director is hereby authorized to charge any fees which may be required, or credit any overpayment, to
`Deposit Account Number
`08-0219
`WARNING: Information on this form may become public. Credit card information should not be included on this form.
`Provide credit card information and authorization on PTO-2038.
`
`Iamthe
`
`I:I applicant/inventor.
`
`|:|
`
`assignee of record of the entire interest. See 37 CFR 3.71.
`Statement under 37 CFR 3.73(b) is enclosed.
`(Form PTO/SB/96).
`attorney or agent of record. Registration Number
`61,540
`
`El
`
`attorney or agent under 37 CFR 1.34.
`Registration number if acting under 37 CFR 1.34
`
`/John V. Hobgoodl
`Signature
`
`July 6, 2011
`Date
`
`I617) 526-6000
`John V. Hob ood
`Telephone Number
`Typed or printed name
`NOTE: Signatures of all the inventors or assignees of record of the entire interest or their representative(s) are required. Submit multiple forms if more
`than one signature is required, see below.
`
`I:
`
`Total of
`
`forms are submitted.
`
`US1 DOCS 7988924v1
`
`14
`
`14
`
`

`

`Electronic Patent Application Fee Transmittal
`
`Filing Date:
`
`07-Oct-2005
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`Method and system for incremental search with reduced text entry where the
`relevance of results is a dynamically computed function of user input search
`string character count
`
`First Named Inventor/Applicant Name:
`
`Murali Aravamudan
`
`Filed as Small Entity
`
`Utility under 35 USC111(a) Filing Fees
`
`Description
`
`Fee Code
`
`Quantity
`
`Sub-Total in
`
`USD($)
`
`Basic Filing:
`
`Miscellaneous-Filing:
`
`Patent Appeals-and-Interference:
`
`Post-AlIowance-and-Post-Issuance:
`
`Extension-of-Time:
`
`Extension -1 rnonth
`
`15
`
`15
`
`

`

` S“:-S1-;(t$a)| in
`
`Total in USD (S)
`
`Miscellaneous:
`
`16
`
`16
`
`

`

`Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
`
`m—
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`Method and system for incremental search with reduced text entry where the
`relevance of results is a dynamically computed function of user input search
`string character count
`
`I
`
`Payment information:
`
`Submitted with Payment
`
`Payment Type
`
`Payment was successfully received in RAM
`
`RAM confirmation Number
`
`Deposit Account
`
`Authorized User
`
`yes
`
`Credit Card
`
`$65
`
`484
`
`080219
`
`HOBGOOD,JOHN V.
`
`Charge any Additional Fees required under 37 C.F.R. Section 1.19 (Document supply fees)
`
`The Director of the USPTO is hereby authorized to charge indicated