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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim 1
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a system that performs at least one step. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step "analyzing the product in the boost category to determine if the product is to be repositioned within the ranked list of the products based on a respective discounted cumulative gain (DCG) score for the product" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., "one or more processors", "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media", "graphical user interface", “product”, “DCG”). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about a product in a list and deciding whether to move it to a different place based on a relevance-weighted score. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment).
"Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas." MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. "For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record." MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Here, the mentioned step falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas and is considered as the single abstract idea for further analysis.
(Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
The claim recites the additional elements/limitations:
"receiving in-session user activity information comprising a user search query from a user and a ranked list of products to be displayed to the user based on the user search query, wherein a product within the ranked list of the products is in a boost category, and wherein the user search query is received via a graphical user interface that is in a first display state" → data receiving;
"in response to determining that the product that is in the boost category is to be repositioned within the ranked list of the products, transmitting instructions to modify the graphical user interface to display the ranked list of the products with the product repositioned within the ranked list of the products, wherein the ranked list of the products is displayed via the graphical user interface in a second display state, the second display state being different than the first display state" → data outputting;
"one or more processors" → generic processor;
"one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions" → generic memory;
"graphical user interface" → generic display interface.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field.
The recited "one or more processors", "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions", and "graphical user interface" do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology. The limitation "receiving in-session user activity information comprising a user search query from a user and a ranked list of products to be displayed to the user based on the user search query…" → data receiving; and "in response to determining that the product that is in the boost category is to be repositioned within the ranked list of the products, transmitting instructions to modify the graphical user interface to display the ranked list of the products with the product repositioned within the ranked list of the products…" → data outputting. The computer itself does not run faster, use less memory, use fewer cycles, or operate more efficiently.
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine. The judicial exception does not apply to any particular machine.
The claim is silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or Internet, nor do applicant direct examiner’s attention to such specific limitations. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea."). Applying this reasoning here, the claim is not directed to a particular machine, but rather merely implement an abstract idea using generic computer components such as "one or more processors", "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media", and "graphical user interface". There is no specific structure, hardware, or arrangement that would tie the abstract idea to a particular machine. Thus, the claims fail to satisfy the "tied to a particular machine" prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The recited "one or more processors", "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media", and "graphical user interface" do not transform any article into a different state or thing. The claim involves only data manipulation, for instance, reordering a list of products and updating a display. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd sub nom, Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("The mere manipulation or reorganization of data ... does not satisfy the transformation prong."). Applying this guidance here, the claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test. No physical article is transformed.
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
This section of the MPEP guides: Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, ... (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation ( an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78 .... The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184... In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S._ .... In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(e). The recited "one or more processors", "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media", and "graphical user interface" do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The limitation "receiving in-session user activity information comprising a user search query from a user and a ranked list of products to be displayed to the user based on the user search query…" → data receiving; and "in response to determining that the product that is in the boost category is to be repositioned within the ranked list of the products, transmitting instructions to modify the graphical user interface to display the ranked list of the products with the product repositioned within the ranked list of the products…" → data outputting are pre and post-solution activities. The limitations are not meaningful limitations.
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitation "receiving in-session user activity information comprising a user search query from a user and a ranked list of products" is pre-solution activity. It only sets up the input data for the analyzing step. The limitation "transmitting instructions to modify the graphical user interface to display the ranked list of the products with the product repositioned" is post-solution activity. It only displays the output of the analyzing step. Both are insignificant extra-solution activity.
6) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The recited "one or more processors", "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media", and "graphical user interface" are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the additional limitations 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 claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations "receiving in-session user activity information comprising a user search query…" → data receiving and "transmitting instructions to modify the graphical user interface… " → data outputting do not recite any non-generic arrangement for repositioning a product in a ranked list. The recited "one or more processors", "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media", and "graphical user interface" are at a high level of generality. They are tools that implement the abstract idea. Taking these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites "determining the respective DCG score based on positions of each of the products in the ranked list of the products including the product that is in the boost category" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., "one or more processors", "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media"). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about where each product is in a list and assigning a DCG score. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation and judgment). The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites "the in-session user activity information further comprises product information corresponding to the ranked list of the products, a respective ranking score for each of the products of the ranked list of the products, and product interaction information corresponding to the ranked list of the products" The claim merely describes a field of use rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites "the product information comprises at least one or more of: a product type, a product quality, or a product category; or the product interaction information comprises at least one or more of: user examination of the products, user clicks on the products, or user add-to-carts of the products" The claim merely describes a field of use rather than a specific technical solution to a technical problem. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites "determining a respective content model prediction score for each of the products of the ranked list of the products" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., "one or more processors", "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media"). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about each product on a list and estimating a prediction score for it. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation and judgment). The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites "determining an alpha value using an equation comprising: α = ĉ · k, where ĉ comprises a predicted click through rate of an item for a query and k comprises a real value corresponding to a number of pseudo-examinations for a query item pair" (as drafted, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., "one or more processors", "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media"). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from being a mathematical calculation. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user calculating a product of a predicted click-through rate and a count of pseudo-examinations. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept under 2019 PEG because it is a mathematical calculation). The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites "determining a posterior distribution using the alpha value; and determining a sample from the posterior distribution, wherein the sample is the respective content model prediction score" (as drafted, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., "one or more processors", "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media"). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from being a mathematical calculation. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user computing a probability distribution from an alpha value and determine a sample from it. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept under 2019 PEG because it is a mathematical calculation). The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites "the posterior distribution is determined using an equation comprising: posterior distribution = Beta(α + clicks, β + examines − clicks), where clicks comprises a number of times a product has been clicked on from a search results page for a particular query, and examines comprises a number of times a product has been observed in the search results page for the particular query" (as drafted, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., "one or more processors", "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media"). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from being a mathematical calculation. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user computing a Beta distribution from counts of clicks and examines. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept under 2019 PEG because it is a mathematical calculation). The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites "determining a respective discounted cumulative gain (DCG) score for positions of each of the products of the ranked list of the products by using an equation comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
30
166
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where p comprises a number of the products in the ranked list of the products,
PNG
media_image2.png
19
26
media_image2.png
Greyscale
comprises a relevance score of a product at position i" (as drafted, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., "one or more processors", "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media"). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from being a mathematical calculation. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user computing a weighted sum of relevance scores discounted by a logarithm of position. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept under 2019 PEG because it is a mathematical calculation). The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites "identifying a first placement within the ranked list of the products, the first placement corresponding to a first product with a highest rank; receiving a discounted cumulative gain (DCG) score for the first product with the highest rank; comparing the DCG score for the first product that is part of the boost category to a boost test threshold, wherein the boost test threshold comprises [(1−s) · DCG for an i-th placement]; and determining that the first product that is part of the boost category is to be repositioned to the first placement when the DCG score for the first product that is part of the boost category is greater than the boost test threshold" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., "one or more processors", "one or more non-transitory computer-readable media"). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about the top spot in a list, looking at a relevance-weighted score for it, computing a threshold from it, and deciding whether to move a tagged product to the top spot. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process and a mathematical concept under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation and judgment together with a calculation). The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11-20 are similar to claim 1. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1 3, 5, 11,13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oztekin (U.S. Pub 2007/0233671 A1), in view of Tang (U.S. Patent 10977297 B1)
Claim 1
Oztekin discloses a system comprising (fig. 12):
one or more processors (fig. 12, CPU 1202); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, perform (fig. 12, memory 1212):
receiving in-session user activity information comprising a user search query from a user and a ranked list of products to be displayed to the user based on the user search query ([0089], “… the search engine122 receives a search query submitted by a user (910) … identifies a set of documents that match the search query (92), each document having a generic ranking score… the net result is an initial set of search result…” <examiner note: each document is considered as a product because a product is defined as a thing or person that is the result of an action or process. A document is a thing that is the result of an action or process such as creating edit document>), wherein a product within the ranked list of the products is in a boost category ([0091], line 1-3, “… the search result ranker 126 analyzes each identified document to determine one or more boost factors using the group and document profiles (935)…”), and wherein the user search query is received via a graphical user interface that is in a first display state ([0031], line 10-13, “… the website 102 includes webpage 116, which may have an associated search box. From the search box, a visitor … can search… by entering a search query into the search box…” <examiner note: first state user enters a search query into the search box>);
analyzing the product in the boost category to determine if the product is to be repositioned within the ranked list of the products ([0091], line 1-4, “… analyzes each identified document to determine one or more boost factors using the group and document profiles (935) and then assigns the document a group-dependent ranking score…” [0097], “… where the weights (Wterm, Wcategory, Wlink) are assigned so that the value in parentheses in the above equations is equal to about 1.0 if the document is to be neither promoted nor demoted in rank for the group, above 1.0 if the document should be promoted, and below 1.0 if the document should be demoted…”); and
in response to determining that the product that in the boost category is to be repositioned within the ranked list of the products, transmitting instructions to modify the graphical user interface to display the ranked list of the products with the product repositioned within the ranked list of the products, wherein the ranked list of the products is displayed via the graphical user interface in a second display state, the second display state being different than the first display state ([0039], line 14-23, “… The documents are then re-ordered in accordance with their respective group-dependent ranking scores. Next, the search result ranker 126 creates a search result in accordance with the updated order of the documents… The search result, or a portion of the search result (e.g., information identifying the top 10, 15 or 20 information items or documents), is returned to the requesting client 103 and displayed to the user through the client application 132…” <examiner note: the interface is updated with search results that are re-ordered in accordance with group-dependent ranking scores>)
However, Oztekin does explicitly disclose analyzing the product to determine if the product is to be repositioned within the ranked list of the products based on a respective discounted cumulative gain (DCG) score for the product
Tang discloses analyzing the product to determine if the product is to be repositioned within the ranked list of the products based on a respective discounted cumulative gain (DCG) score for the product (col 17, line 8-67 thru col 18, line 1-33, “… a ranked list 510 in FIG. 5… The computer model 400 discounts the position gain score of each content item by a position discount factor that increases as the content item in the proposed ranked order is ranked lower compared to other content items… After each of the gain scores in the proposed ranked list is discounted by the position, the computer model 400 determines a sum of the discounted position gain scores… an optimal ranked list is shown in the ranked list 520 in FIG. 5. In the ranked list 520, content items having the highest position gain scores (e.g., content items 3 and 5) are ranked higher than other content items that have lower position gain scores. Since the discount factors increase with the position number, the content items that are ranked high are discounted the least. As a result, the DCG of the ranked list 520 is higher than the DCG of ranked list 510…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate re-rank the initial ranked items using DCG as disclosed by Tang in Oztekin initial ranked list of product because the DCG is used to determine the ranks of items/products based on both the relevance of the items/products not only based on its relevance to the query but also based on their position in the search results also.
Claim 3
Claim 1 is included, Oztekin discloses wherein the in-session user activity information further comprises product information corresponding to the ranked list of the products, a respective ranking score for each of the products of the ranked list of the products, and product interaction information corresponding to the ranked list of the products ([0046], “… In order to capture the current user interest associated with a particular group, the group profiler 129 may need to have access to the users' search history. The users' search history includes the search queries submitted by users, the search results responsive to the search queries, the users' activities on the search results (e.g., selection of a document link, sometimes called "clicking" on a search result, amount of time spent at a document after selecting the document link, mouse hovering time over a document link, or the like), the current website viewed by the user, the last n websites viewed by the user (where n is a whole number, typically on the order of five to ten), the user's favorite websites, or the like…”)
Claim 5
Claim 1 is included, Oztekin discloses wherein the computing instructions, when executed on the one or more processors, further perform: determining a respective content model prediction score for each of the products of the ranked list of the products ([0091], line 1-4, “… analyzes each identified document to determine one or more boost factors using the group and document profiles (935) and then assigns the document a group-dependent ranking score…” [0097], “… where the weights (Wterm, Wcategory, Wlink) are assigned so that the value in parentheses in the above equations is equal to about 1.0 if the document is to be neither promoted nor demoted in rank for the group, above 1.0 if the document should be promoted, and below 1.0 if the document should be demoted…”)
Claim 11, 13, and 15 are similar to claim 1, 3, and 5. The claims are rejected based on similar reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights