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, 3-11, and 13-22 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, The claim recites a system comprising a web server and a search ranking engine that performs a series of operational steps. Accordingly, the claim is a machine, which is one of the four explicit statutory categories of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A Prong 1 This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Limitation “calculates that the product in the boost category is to be repositioned within the ranked list of the products based on a respective discounted cumulative gain (DCG) score for the product, and on positions of each of the products in the ranked list of the products including the product in the boost category” This limitation recites an abstract idea under the Mathematical Concepts grouping. The claim explicitly requires performing calculations using Discounted Cumulative Gain (DCG), which is a mathematical formula. Under MPEP 2106, this constitutes an abstract idea because it describes performing mathematical calculations using known formulas and algorithms for ranking purposes.
“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. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, limitation “calculates that ... boost category” is considered as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong 2, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Additional Elements/limitations:
a system comprising, a web server, and a search ranking engine => Generic hardware components.
receives in-session user activity information... and a ranked list of products to be displayed... received via a graphical user interface... over a network => conventional data gathering operations.
in response to calculating... generates instructions causing the graphical user interface... the second display state being different than the first display state => conventional post-solution output commands
MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field:
The specification does not explain how this invention solves a technical problem or improves existing technology at an architectural level. The claim merely recites applying an abstract mathematical calculation to product rankings. The additional elements do not provide improvements to the computer or technologies (such as increasing processing speed, reducing memory requirements, or enhancing network efficiency). Instead, the computer is used as a tool to execute a mathematical exception and display the results on a screen.
MPEP 2106.05(b) Particular Machine:
The web server and search ranking engine are generic components. These components appear only during pre-solution data gathering and post-solution result display phases. The exception is run on generic hardware because it provides computational speed, rather than the machine itself being uniquely transformed to solve a technical problem in an unconventional way.
MPEP 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation:
The repositioning products within a ranked list merely manipulates electronic data by reordering items in a digital display interface. This type of data reorganization represents an extra-solution activity that happens during display steps after the calculation is finished, adding no patentable weight.
MPEP 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations:
The additional elements do not prevent preemption of the mathematical concept or narrow its scope meaningfully. The ordered combination of receiving queries, calculating DCG scores, generating GUI instructions, and updating display states operates conventionally in a standard input-process-output sequence without an unconventional technical configuration.
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception:
The claim essentially tells a computer to perform DCG calculations and display results, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer platform. There are no specific steps explaining how to accomplish the calculation in an unconventional way.
MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity:
The data reception steps are merely pre-solution activities to gather input information needed for the DCG calculation. Similarly, generating GUI modification instructions, updating display states, and comparing display conditions represent post-solution activities where results are transmitted or displayed after the mathematical operation is complete. They merely describe conventional computer functions for input/output operations that occur around the core exception.
MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment:
Describing operation over a network with web servers and user devices simply establishes where data gathering occurs and where results are displayed. This field-of-use limitation attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B, Examine the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination to determine if they provide an inventive concept that adds "significantly more" than the exception itself. None of the claim limitations describe unconventional steps or configurations beyond routine practices in search ranking technology. The DCG calculation is a mathematical formula used in information retrieval systems and applying it to product repositioning is a conventional application of an existing algorithm. Generic web servers and standard GUI operations are ordinary computer functions that do not add anything inventive beyond what any software developer would implement. The claim limitations do not describe a specific, non-generic solution to a specific technical problem in the manner required by Berkheimer v. HP Inc. Using standard ranking parameters does not constitute solving a particular technical challenge. There are no factual inquiries showing how the calculation improves computer operations beyond the conventional speed and order of results display. The claim fails to identify specific technical problems (such as memory constraints, processing bottlenecks, or network latency issues) that this approach uniquely solves. The ordered combination of additional elements does NOT add “significantly more” than the mathematical concept exception itself under Step 2B. Generic hardware components, conventional data pipeline operations, post-solution display activities, and standard network communication protocols are all well-understood, routine, and conventional practices in computer technology. They merely provide instructions to apply the DCG mathematical concept on generic hardware, which fails to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
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 “the search ranking engine generates a respective content model prediction score.” Under MPEP 2106, reciting a score generation outcome without explaining the specific technical means by which it is computed merely applies an abstract idea on generic computer functionality, adding no inventive concept under Step 2B.
Claim 6 recites “wherein generating the respective content model prediction score for each of the products of the ranked list of the products further comprises calculating 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” This limitation recites a specific mathematical formula. Under MPEP 2106, claims reciting mathematical formulas by name or with explicit equations constitute abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites “wherein generating the respective content model prediction score for each of the products of the ranked list of the products further comprises: calculating a posterior distribution using the alpha value; and generating a sample from the posterior distribution, wherein the sample is the respective content model prediction score.” Probabilistic calculations constitute abstract mathematical concepts under MPEP 2106. The claim merely states that statistical operations are performed using conventional Bayesian inference techniques on a generic computer.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the posterior distribution is calculated 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.” The claim recites the explicit probability distribution formula ("posterior distribution=Beta(α+clicks, β+examines−clicks)..."). Under MPEP 2106, reciting explicit probability distribution formulas constitutes a Mathematical Concept. The claim does not describe how this formula alters computer capability, reduces memory load, or increases network efficiency.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the computing instructions, when executed on the one or more processors, further perform: calculating 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
52
162
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprises a number of the products in the ranked list of the products, reli comprises a relevance score of a product at position i.” The claim recites an explicit formula calculation. Under MPEP 2106, reciting explicit probability distribution formulas constitutes a Mathematical Concept. The claim does not describe how this formula alters computer capability, reduces memory load, or increases network efficiency.
Claim 10 recites “wherein calculating whether the product in the boost category is to be repositioned within the ranked list of the products further comprises: 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 ith placement]; and calculating that when the DCG score for the first product that is part of the boost category is greater than the boost test threshold, wherein the calculation results in the first product that is part of the boost category being repositioned to the first placement.” This limitation recites conditional logic and mathematical comparisons, which fall within the Mental Process grouping. The repositioning action represents post-solution display activity that merely reflects the outcome of an abstract calculation without improving underlying hardware or operating system functionality.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the respective content model prediction score is generated using one of an explore model or an exploit model, wherein the use of the one of the explore model or the exploit model is based on the user activity information from a session identifier within a cookie.” The “explore/exploit” model represents a well-understood method used in reinforcement learning and bandit algorithms. Selecting between exploration and exploitation constitutes an abstract mathematical concept when claimed at this high level of generality. Utilizing cookies for tracking constitutes well-understood, routine pre-solution data gathering activity.
Claims 11, 13-20, and 22 are similar to claims 1, 3-10, and 21. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons
Response to Arguments
Section – Rejections Under 35 U.S.C 101
Pg. 8-9, Applicant argues that “… Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Particularly, the Examiner alleges that the claimed invention is directed to a law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant traverses the rejection for at least the reasons set forth below.
In the interests of expediting prosecution, independent claim 1 has been amended to more particularly recite "a web server; and a search ranking engine operatively connected to the web server, wherein the search ranking engine: receives in-session user activity information comprising a user search query from a user operating a user device communicatively connected to the web server over a network... wherein the user search query is received via a graphical user interface of the user device that is in a first display state over a network communicatively connected to the search ranking engine via a web server." Independent claim 1 has been further amended to recite "calculating that the product in the boost category is to be repositioned... based on a respective discounted cumulative gain (DCG) score for the product, and on positions of each of the products in the ranked list of the products including the product in the boost category; and in response to calculating that the product that is in the boost category is to be repositioned... generating instructions causing the graphical user interface to be modified to display the ranked list of the products with the product repositioned within the ranked list of the products...."
In other words, independent claim 1 recites a specific computerized search-ranking and graphical-user-interface process performed in a networked computer environment, not to a mental process or to generic data receiving and outputting.
Claims 5-10 and 15-20 have been amended for consistency and clarification commensurate with the amendments made to independent claims 1 and 11…”
Applicant argues that independent claim 1 recites a specific computerized search-ranking and graphical-user-interface process performed in a networked computer environment, rather than an abstract mental process or generic data manipulation.
Claim 1 explicitly requires calculating a “discounted cumulative gain (DCG) score... and positions of each of the products”. This limitation sets forth an abstract mathematical algorithm. Under Step 2A Prong One, reciting an abstract idea means the claim language describes a mathematical formula or calculation. Implementing this calculation within a networked computing environment does not alter its status as a judicial exception.
The claim includes a web server and a search ranking engine operatively connected to the web server that constitute generic hardware infrastructure. These standard generic components provide conventional processing capacity. They do not transform the underlying mathematical calculation into patent-eligible subject matter.
The claim limitations requiring the system to receive “in-session user activity information... over a network” describe conventional data gathering operations. Collecting and transmitting input parameters over a network represents well-understood, routine, and conventional pre-solution activity. These steps do not integrate the mathematical exception into a practical application.
Generating instructions causing a computer to modify the graphical user interface... to display the ranked list constitutes conventional output display functionality. Altering display states merely presents the results of the abstract idea. It does not improve the underlying operating system or display hardware architecture.
Paragraph [0054] defines the standard mathematical equation. Furthermore, paragraphs [0067]-[0069] assert that processing millions of search queries within milliseconds cannot be completed manually. This describes the processing scale and speed of a conventional computer, which does not amount to a technical improvement in computing capability. The specification fails to describe any unconventional algorithmic or structural framework that changes how the machine itself functions.
Pg. 9-10, Applicant argues that “… Under Step 2A, Prong One, independent claim as-amended, no longer reasonably encompasses a person merely thinking about a product in a list and deciding whether to move it. Independent claim 1 now expressly requires a search ranking engine receiving in-session user activity information from a user operating a user device, where the user search query is received via a graphical user interface of the user device over a network operatively connected to the search ranking engine via a web server. The specification describes the search ranking engine as including communication system 311, evaluation system 312, analysis system 313, and database system 314, and further explains that the search ranking engine and/or web server can be a computer system, server, cluster, collection of servers, or cloud of computers or servers. Specification, [0045].1 The specification also describes wired and wireless communication networks, including PAN, LAN, WAN, cellular, Ethernet, WiFi, and related network hardware and protocols. Specification, [0044]. These amended limitations require computer operations and network communications that cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
The specification further confirms that the recited "in-session user activity information" is not an abstract mental input, but computer-session information comprising a user search query and a ranked list of products to be displayed based on that query (while further suggesting real-time/near real-time operation). Specification, [0048]. The specification further explains that communication system 311 can at least partially perform the receiving activity. Specification, [0061]. The user device is likewise a computer endpoint, such as a desktop computer, laptop computer, mobile device, wearable user computer device, or other endpoint device capable of presenting visual data. Specification, [0036]. Accordingly, amended independent claim 1 is not directed to a human decision-making process. It requires a networked interaction among a user device, graphical user interface, web server, and search ranking engine…”
Applicant's argument that the claim no longer encompasses a person merely thinking mischaracterizes the rejection. The judicial exception currently identified in Claim 1 is a Mathematical Concept. The claim explicitly recites: "calculates that the product... based on a respective discounted cumulative gain (DCG) score". Under Step 2A Prong One, a claim is directed to an abstract idea if it sets forth or describes a mathematical formula or relationship. The physical or computational complexity of the execution environment does not change the fact that the claim text recites a mathematical algorithm. Applicant cites paragraphs, [0044], [0045], and [0061] to argue that communication hardware, network protocols (WiFi, Ethernet, WAN), and specific engine systems (311–314) create a non-abstract computerized layout. However, these modules represent conventional software and hardware components acting in their ordinary capacities. They serve as conventional conduits for data processing and transmission, which fail to integrate the underlying mathematical algorithm into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Applicant points to paragraph [0048] to show that in-session user activity information constitutes real-time session data rather than abstract input. Collecting, organizing, and managing in-session data over a network represent routine data gathering operations. Ingesting search data over standard communication networks is a well-understood, conventional pre-solution activity that adds no patentable weight.
The paragraphs [0036] and [0036] describe generic user devices.
Generic computer components (search ranking engine , communication network, network protocols, user devices) do not transform a mathematical exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
Pg. 10-11, Applicant argues that “… Even if the Office maintains that the DCG-based analysis recites or involves an abstract idea, independent claim 1, as currently amended, integrates any such idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. Independent claim 1 does not merely collect data and display a result. Rather, independent claim 1 uses the received in-session search-query information and ranked product list in a search ranking engine to determine whether a boost- category product should be repositioned, and then generates instructions causing the graphical user interface of the user device to be modified from a first display state to a second display state showing the repositioned ranked list. The specification describes the corresponding practical application: "transmitting instructions to modify a GUI to display the ranked list of products with the product repositioned within the ranked list of products." Specification, [0060]. The final limitation therefore is not insignificant post-solution activity - it is, instead, the practical application of the analysis in the specific context of a computerized query/response system and graphical user interface…”
Applicant relies on paragraph [0060], which describes "transmitting instructions to modify a GUI to display the ranked list... with the product repositioned", to argue that the second display state provides a concrete technological application. However, altering the display states to reflect data processing results is a conventional output function. Transmitting instructions to display a reordered list occurs entirely after the mathematical exception has concluded. It does not improve the underlying operating system architecture or the graphical display hardware itself.
Applicant asserts that using the received information to determine whether a boost-category product should be repositioned rescues the claim from eligibility defects. The calculation comprises the abstract idea itself (the Mathematical Concept). Under Step 2A, Prong Two, an applicant cannot rely on the judicial exception to integrate that very exception into a practical application. The integration must stem from the additional elements acting in an unconventional or structurally transformative way.
The claim contains no limitations describing how computing operations are optimized, how server bottlenecks are bypassed, or how network efficiency is improved. Using a standard computer to automate a ranking system is just a basic software setup, not a unique technological improvement.
Pg. 11, Applicant argues “… The specification further identifies the technological problem and improvement. Prior techniques used static repositioning, in which a placement was predetermined to receive a product regardless of analysis, causing user frustration and burdening the computing system with additional queries. Specification, [0065]. The disclosed techniques instead analyze search queries and ranked lists of products to determine efficient repositioning within the ranked list. Specification, [0065]. The specification further discloses that altering a graphical user interface to display ranked products based on a boost test improves computing-system efficiency because users may not input additional queries. Specification, [0066]. The specification also explains that the techniques can be used continuously at a scale that cannot reasonably be performed manually or in the human mind, including processing millions of search queries and ranked products within milliseconds. Specification, [0066]…”
Applicant’s argument has been considered.
Patent eligibility is determined by the express text of the claim limitations, not by text disclosed in the written description. The actual language of Claim 1 merely recites calculating a numerical score, applying conditional logic, and updating a display. Because the claim itself fails to recite the structural steps or software constraints that actively generate the alleged technical improvement, the specification cannot rescue the claim from ineligibility.
Paragraph [0065] highlights user frustration and a reduction in the number of subsequent queries inputted by a consumer. This describes a consumer behavioral outcome and an improved website user experience. Maximizing user satisfaction or improving website user experience does not constitute a technical solution to an underlying technological problem in computer itself.
Applicant points to paragraph [0066] to emphasize that processing millions of search requests within milliseconds demonstrates a technical solution. Executing a standard mathematical algorithm (DCG) rapidly at a large scale represents conventional tool automation. The claim does not alter processor architecture, optimize memory allocation, or change network protocols.
Pg. 11-12, Applicant argues “… This is consistent with USPTO eligibility guidance. For example, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance examples recognize that a claim can integrate an abstract idea into a practical application when additional limitations use computer-network data in a particular way to improve the operation of a networked computer system, rather than merely gathering data and displaying a result. See, USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, Example 40, Step 2A, Prong Two. The guidance likewise recognizes that even where a claim involves mathematical concepts, the claim may be eligible when the additional elements use those concepts in a specific practical application involving computer terminals and network communications. See USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, Example 41, Step 2A, Prong Two. Here, independent claim 1 similarly uses the DCG-based determination in a specific computerized search-ranking and GUI-modification process over a network, not as an end in itself…”
Applicant’s argument has been considered.
Example 40, the eligible claims recite a specific technical solution where a system monitors network traffic data and dynamically varies the type and amount of data collected based on detected network events. This explicitly improves the operation of the network monitoring system itself by preventing data overload during normal operating conditions. In contrast, claim 1 does not recite modification to network infrastructure. The claim language simply receives in-session user activity information over a network, calculating a Discounted Cumulative Gain (DCG) score, and generating display commands. The claim does not alter network bandwidth allocation, adjust data routing protocols, or optimize network traffic handling. The claim merely utilizes a conventional network to feed data to an abstract calculation, which fails to replicate the network monitoring efficiencies of Example 40.
Example 41, the mathematical equation for cryptographic encoding is integrated into a practical application because it is specifically deployed to secure private network communications. Claim 1 recites no cryptographic operations, token exchanges, data encryption, or security protocols. Calculating a DCG score is not a security operation. While Example 41 uses mathematics to alter data state security, claim 1 uses a DCG calculation solely to sort products.
Applicant asserts that the DCG determination triggers a GUI state modification. However, steps of the claim reveal a conventional input-process-output sequence: data ingestion (pre-solution activity), DCG scoring (the abstract Mathematical Concept), and interface reordering (post-solution display).
Unlike Examples 40 and 41-where the final step results in a more efficient network or a highly secure data channel-the final step of Claim 1 is simply the visual representation of the calculation itself. Modifying a user device interface from a first display state to a second display state to show a reordered list is an ordinary computer output function. The claim does not provide a process that improves the underlying capabilities of the computing systems involved.
Pg. 12, Applicant argues that “… Independent claim 1 also fits within the type of GUI improvement recognized in USPTO guidance concerning graphical user interfaces. Independent claim 1 does not simply calculate a score or present information, but rather recites a particular computerized sequence that receives a search query through a GUI in a first display state, analyzes a boost-category product in the context of a ranked product list generated from that query, and generates instructions causing the GUI to display a second display state in which the ranked list is modified by repositioning the product. This improves the way the graphical user interface presents search results to the user in the specific context of computerized product-search ranking, consistent with the specification's explanation that the GUI is altered to display ranked products based on the boost test. Specification, [0066].
For at least these reasons, independent claim 1 is not directed to the alleged mental process, but rather, as a whole, recites computer operations, network communications, and a GUI display-state modification that integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 11 includes, and has been amended to recite, corresponding limitations to those recited by independent claim 1, and is patent eligible for the same reasons.
Claims 3-10 and 13-20 depend from one of independent claims 1 or 11, and are patent eligible for at least the same reasons, while their additional limitations further define the computerized scoring and boost-test implementation described in the specification.
In light of the above, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the § 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20…”
Applicant’s argument has been considered.
The claim limitation generates instructions causing the graphical user interface... the second display state being different than the first display state does not improve user interface technology. Modifying a display layout or transitioning an interface between states to present results is a conventional output function. The claim does not show how the underlying graphics rendering architecture, display hardware, or operating system display driver is optimized. Changing what information is shown on a screen is a routine presentation of data, not a technological improvement to the interface mechanism itself. Applicant cites paragraph [0066] to argue that updating the interface based on a boost test (not in the claim) improves computing efficiency by preventing users from having to input additional queries. Maximizing user convenience does not constitute a technical solution to an engineering problem in computer functionality.
Applicant contends that the claim is eligible because it recites active computer operations and physical network communications that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The web server and search ranking engine are generic components operating in their ordinary capacities. The network communications simply represent a data pipeline used to move data into and out of the calculation. Automating an abstract mathematical concept (DCG scoring) over ordinary communication lines so that it executes more rapidly than human calculation represents standard tool automation.
Independent claim 11 recites an operational method that mirrors the system architecture of Claim 1. Because it incorporates the same underlying mathematical exception (DCG calculation) and relies on the identical generic hardware elements, network pipelines, and post-solution GUI updates, it is directed to the same ineligible subject matter and fails eligibility for the same reasons.
Similarly, the additional limitations introduced in dependent claims 3-10 and 13-20 fail to rescue the application. As analyzed in detail under the individual claim reviews, these elements do not alter the conventional computing infrastructure or implement the exception in an unconventional configuration, thereby failing to supply an inventive concept.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
U.S. Patent 9098176 B1 - Tauber discloses methods, systems for identifying a set of items of digital content displayed to a user; processing the set of items to identify a set of boost items, items within the set of boost items to be prominently displayed, processing comprising: receiving a close-ties score associated with a respective item, the close-ties score representing a relationship between the user and other users associated with the respective item and an importance of a social circle associated with the item to the user, determining that the close-ties score associated with the respective item exceeds a threshold close-ties score, and in response to determining that the close-ties score exceeds the threshold close-ties score, adding the respective item to the set of boost items; providing instructions for boosting a display of items in the set of boost items in a page displayed to the user.
U.S. Pub 2011/0288927 – Tantrum discloses systems, methods, and computer-readable media for, among other things, utilizing a relevance judgment to estimate a discounted cumulative gain. A relevance judgment may be estimated for an advertisement that has not been previously associated with a relevance judgment such that an estimated discounted cumulative gain (eDCG) may be calculated for a search query. An advertisement may be identified as having not been previously associated with a relevance judgment for the query:ad pair. Utilizing an advertiser's history with the search query, the advertiser's history with other search queries, or a history of the search query, an estimated relevance judgment may be identified. The estimated relevance judgment may be utilized to calculate an eDCG for a search query and/or an advertising system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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