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 .
The Amendment filed on 02/27/26 has been received and entered. Application No. 18/891,566 of which claims 4, 14 are canceled and claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are pending in the application, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s response, filed on 02/27/26, with respect to 101 rejections directed to an abstract idea of claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s response with respect to 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
This action is made final in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejections of claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant made the following arguments:
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20, Applicant argues “amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea of mental processes, because the claimed method integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application and provides an improvement in the technical field of computer technology”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites selecting a first subset of search results based at least in part on the match score associated with each search result of the set of search results; selecting a second subset of search results from the set of search results, wherein the second subset of search results comprises only search results not included in the first subset of search results, wherein the second subset of search results is selected independent of the match score; accessing one or more page features corresponding to the pages in the first subset of search results, wherein the one or more page features comprise the page title and at least one of: page edit date, page comment date, page creation date, page views, page authority score, or page verification status; determining, by the ranking model, a ranked ordering of search results in the first subset of search results by determining a similarity between the search query and the page title of each page associated with the first subset of search results; ordering the pages associated with the first subset of search results based on the determined ranking; determining an insertion position within the ranked ordering for inserting an additional result; selecting the additional result from the second subset of search results. The limitations of selecting…, accessing…, determining…, ordering…, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “method…,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “method…,” “of “selecting…, accessing…, determining…, ordering,” in the context of these claims encompass the user manually selecting search results, accessing page features corresponding to pages, determining ranked ordering of search results, determining insertion position within ranked ordering, ordering pages, selecting additional result using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – receiving…, generating…, providing…, modifying…, inserting…, causing…. The “modifying”, “inserting” and “causing” limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The “generating”, “receiving”, “providing” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering, outputting, please see MPEP 2106.05g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “Modifying”, “inserting” and “causing” amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The additional elements of “generating”, “receiving”, “providing” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (storing or data gathering, outputting, see MPEP 2106.05d). The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, Examiner points that improvement cannot be part of the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 1 recites selecting a first subset of search results based at least in part on the match score associated with each search result of the set of search results; selecting a second subset of search results from the set of search results, wherein the second subset of search results comprises only search results not included in the first subset of search results, wherein the second subset of search results is selected independent of the match score; accessing one or more page features corresponding to the pages in the first subset of search results, wherein the one or more page features comprise the page title and at least one of: page edit date, page comment date, page creation date, page views, page authority score, or page verification status; determining, by the ranking model, a ranked ordering of search results in the first subset of search results by determining a similarity between the search query and the page title of each page associated with the first subset of search results; ordering the pages associated with the first subset of search results based on the determined ranking; determining an insertion position within the ranked ordering for inserting an additional result; selecting the additional result from the second subset of search results.
The limitations of selecting…, accessing…, determining…, ordering…, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “method…,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “method…,” “of “selecting…, accessing…, determining…, ordering,” in the context of these claims encompass the user manually selecting search results, accessing page features corresponding to pages, determining ranked ordering of search results, determining insertion position within ranked ordering, ordering pages, selecting additional result using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – receiving…, generating…, providing…, modifying…, inserting…, causing…. The “modifying”, “inserting” and “causing” limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The “generating”, “receiving”, “providing” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering, outputting, please see MPEP 2106.05g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “Modifying”, “inserting” and “causing” amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The additional elements of “generating”, “receiving”, “providing” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (storing or data gathering, outputting, see MPEP 2106.05d). The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 2 recites comprising, prior to causing display of the ranked ordering of search results to the user: modifying the ranked ordering of search results, wherein modifying the ranked ordering of search results comprises: selecting at least one search result from the ranked ordering of search results; and changing a position of the at least one search result in the ranked ordering of search results. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., modifying, selecting, changing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 3 and 13 recite accessing a set of search results from a search engine, wherein each search result of the set of search results comprises a page identifier that identifies a page corresponding to a search result of the set of search results; selecting a subset of search results from the set of search results, wherein each page is a parent block including one or more child blocks, wherein the parent block and the one or more child blocks for each page are stored at a server associated with the hierarchically organized workspace, wherein each block has a set of attributes associated with features, and wherein the one or more child blocks includes a title block associated with an attribute associated with page title; selecting a subset of search results from the set of search results; accessing one or more page features corresponding to the pages identified in the subset of search results, wherein the one or more page features comprise the page title and at least one of: page edit date, page comment date, page creation date, page views, page authority score, or page verification status; ordering the pages associated with the subset of search results based on the determined ranking. The limitations of accessing…, selecting…, ordering…, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “method…,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “method…,” “of “accessing…, selecting…, ordering…” in the context of these claims encompass the user manually accessing search results, selecting search results, accessing page features, ordering pages using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – generating…, ranking…, modifying…, inserting…. The “ranking”, “modifying” and “inserting” limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The “generating” limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering, outputting, please see MPEP 2106.05g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “Ranking”, “modifying” and “inserting” amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05f). The additional elements of “generating” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (storing or data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05d). The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 5 and 15 recite wherein modifying the rank-ordered set of search results comprises modifying a position of at least one search result of the rank-ordered set of search results, wherein modifying the position comprises: identifying a search result of the rank-ordered set of search results; determining a first position of the identified search result, wherein the first position indicates a current position of the identified search result; determining a second position of the identified search result, wherein the second position indicates a new position of the identified search result, and wherein the second position is a higher position than the first position, and re-ordering the rank-ordered set of search results to move the identified search result from the first position to the second position. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., modifying, identifying, determining, re-ordering) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 6 and 16 recite wherein re-ordering the rank-ordered set of search results comprises: identifying a second search result that is positioned at the second position in the rank-ordered set of search results; and moving the second search result to the first position. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., re-ordering, identifying, moving) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 7 and 17 recite wherein re-ordering the rank-ordered set of search results comprises: shifting a position of each search result at or below the second position to a lower position, wherein shifting the position moves each search result to a position one lower than a position in the rank-ordered set of search results. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., re-ordering, shifting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 8 and 18 recite wherein modifying the rank-ordered set of search results comprises inserting an additional search result, wherein inserting the additional search result comprises: selecting the additional search result from the set of search results, wherein the additional search result is not included in the rank-ordered set of search results; determining an insertion position in the rank-ordered set of search results; and inserting the additional search result into the rank-ordered set of search results at the insertion position, wherein the insertion position is within a threshold number of positions from a highest search result. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., modifying, inserting, selecting, determining) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 9 and 19 recite identifying a search result to be removed, wherein the search result to be removed is a search result below a threshold ranking in the rank-ordered set of search results; and removing the identified search result to be removed. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., identifying, removing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 10 recites wherein the additional search result comprises a page that was newly created within a threshold period of time. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claims 11 and 20 recite wherein the additional search result is selected independent of a match score indicating a relevance of the additional search result. The limitations only recite additional elements recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim 12 recites wherein modifying the rank-ordered set of search results comprises adding the page associated with the user, wherein the page associated with the user comprises at least one of: a page edited by the user, a page created by the user, a page created by another user in a same team as the user, a page edited by another user in the same team as the user, a page created by another user in a same role as the user, or a page edited by another user in the same role as the user. The limitations only recite additional elements at a high level of generality. These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., modifying, adding) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and in combination, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upstill et al. (U.S. Pub 2019/0155948; hereinafter “Upstill”) in view of Jain et al. (U.S. PGPub 2007/0162448; hereinafter “Jain”).
As per claim 1, Upstill discloses a computer-implemented method for optimized search result ranking, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a search string from a user via a user interface; (See Fig. 2, para. 41, wherein receiving a query submitted by user in which “the category quality ranking module 120 receives, from the search system 110, a query submitted by a user device 106. The query has one or more terms” (analogous to search string) [0041] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
receiving, from the search engine, a set of search results, wherein each search result of the set of search results has a match score associated therewith, (See Fig. 2, paras. 18-20, wherein search scores of resources for received query in which “the system receives a query and data indicating resources (analogous to search results) identified by a search operation as being responsive to the query. The resources are ranked according to a first order of responsiveness to the received query. The system then optionally selects a proper subset of the resources, and determines whether the proper subset meets a quality condition based on a quality measure that is indicative of the quality of the resources in the proper subset and independent of search scores of the resources for received query” [0018] and “If the quality condition for the proper subset is met, then the system determines a quality score for each resource. The quality score is a measure of quality of the resource for the category to which the received query belongs” [0020] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
and wherein each search result of the set of search results has a page associated therewith; (See para. 26, wherein resources (analogous to search result) include HTML page, images, video, etc. in which “ resource is any data that can be provided by the publisher 104 over the network 102 and that is associated with a resource address. Resources include HTML pages, images, video, and feed sources, to name just a few. The resources can include content, such as words, phrases, pictures, and so on, and may include embedded information (such as meta information and hyperlinks) and/or embedded instructions” [0026] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
selecting a first subset of search results based at least in part on the match score associated with each search result of the set of search results; (See Fig. 2, paras. 18-20, wherein search scores of resources for received query, selecting subset of resources in which “the system receives a query and data indicating resources (analogous to search results) identified by a search operation as being responsive to the query. The resources are ranked according to a first order of responsiveness to the received query. The system then optionally selects a proper subset of the resources (analogous to first subset), and determines whether the proper subset meets a quality condition based on a quality measure that is indicative of the quality of the resources in the proper subset and independent of search scores of the resources for received query” [0018] and “If the quality condition for the proper subset is met, then the system determines a quality score for each resource. The quality score is a measure of quality of the resource for the category to which the received query belongs” [0020] are disclosed, also See paras. 50-56, wherein quality condition for a resource set processes are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
selecting a second subset of search results from the set of search results, wherein the second subset of search results comprises only search results not included in the first subset of search results, wherein the second subset of search results is selected independent of the match score; (See Fig. 2, paras. 36, 42-46, wherein quality ranking module functions on determining quality condition of resources in which “If the proper subset does not meet the quality condition, e.g., if a threshold number of resources in the proper subset does not meet the quality condition, then the process 200 does not re-rank resources in proper subset according to quality scores (210). For example, the category quality ranking module 120 does not perform a subsequent scoring on the resources, and the search system 110 may then return search results to the user device 106 according to the first order, or may perform other post search operation processes before returning search results to the user device” (analogous to the second subset of search results comprises only search results not included in the first subset of search results) [0046] are disclosed, also See paras. 91-93, wherein management of resources not meeting quality condition in which “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-scored based on quality scores, while the other resources that do not meet the popularity condition are not re-scored (analogous to second subset)” [0091] and “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-ranked; the other resources (analogous to second subset) that do are demoted to occupy the least significant ordinal positions in the proper subset. For example, assume the proper subset is 10 resources, and the resources at the third and fourth ordinal positions do not meet the quality condition. After re-ranking, these two resources will occupy positions 9 and 10, respectively” [0092] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
accessing one or more page features corresponding to the pages in the first subset of search results, wherein the one or more page features comprise the page title and at least one of: page edit date, page comment date, page creation date, page views, page authority score, or page verification status; (See paras. 29-30, wherein search system utilizing index to identify resources relevant to queries in which "A search result is data generated by the search system 110 that identifies a resource that satisfies a particular search query, and includes a resource locator, or some other identifier, for the resource. An example search result can include a web page title, a snippet of text extracted from the web page, and the URL of the web page" [0029] and “user feedback scores, and optionally a separate ranking of each resource relative to other resources ( e.g., an authority score)” [0030] are disclosed, also See paras. 50-57, wherein quality condition for resource set, various features are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
providing an indication of the search string, first subset of search results and the one or more page features to a ranking model; (See paras. 18-19, 57-58, wherein data indicating resources in response to the query and topicality scoring process for resources in terms of similarity of query terms to terms in resources are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
determining an insertion position within the ranked ordering for inserting an additional result; (See Fig. 2, paras. 36, 42-46, wherein quality ranking module functions on determining quality condition of resources in which “If the proper subset does not meet the quality condition, e.g., if a threshold number of resources in the proper subset does not meet the quality condition, then the process 200 does not re-rank resources in proper subset according to quality scores (210). For example, the category quality ranking module 120 does not perform a subsequent scoring on the resources, and the search system 110 may then return search results to the user device 106 according to the first order, or may perform other post search operation processes before returning search results to the user device” (analogous to additional result) [0046] are disclosed, also See paras. 91-93, wherein management of resources not meeting quality condition in which “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-scored based on quality scores, while the other resources that do not meet the popularity condition are not re-scored (analogous to second subset)” [0091] and “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-ranked; the other resources (analogous to additional result) that do are demoted to occupy the least significant ordinal positions in the proper subset. For example, assume the proper subset is 10 resources, and the resources at the third and fourth ordinal positions do not meet the quality condition. After re-ranking, these two resources will occupy positions 9 and 10, respectively” (analogous to an insertion position within the ranked ordering for inserting an additional result) [0092] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
selecting the additional result from the second subset of search results; (See Fig. 2, paras. 36, 42-46, wherein quality ranking module functions on determining quality condition of resources in which “If the proper subset does not meet the quality condition, e.g., if a threshold number of resources in the proper subset does not meet the quality condition, then the process 200 does not re-rank resources in proper subset according to quality scores (210). For example, the category quality ranking module 120 does not perform a subsequent scoring on the resources, and the search system 110 may then return search results to the user device 106 according to the first order, or may perform other post search operation processes before returning search results to the user device” (analogous to selecting the additional result from the second subset of search results) [0046] are disclosed, also See paras. 91-93, wherein management of resources not meeting quality condition in which “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-scored based on quality scores, while the other resources that do not meet the popularity condition are not re-scored (analogous to second subset)” [0091] and “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-ranked; the other resources (analogous to additional result) that do are demoted to occupy the least significant ordinal positions in the proper subset. For example, assume the proper subset is 10 resources, and the resources at the third and fourth ordinal positions do not meet the quality condition. After re-ranking, these two resources will occupy positions 9 and 10, respectively” (analogous to selecting the additional result from the second subset of search results) [0092] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
modifying the ranked ordering of search results by inserting the additional result into the ranked ordering of search results at the insertion position; (See paras. 91-93, wherein management of resources not meeting quality condition in which “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-scored based on quality scores, while the other resources that do not meet the popularity condition are not re-scored (analogous to additional result)” [0091] and “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-ranked; the other resources (analogous to additional result) that do are demoted to occupy the least significant ordinal positions in the proper subset. For example, assume the proper subset is 10 resources, and the resources at the third and fourth ordinal positions do not meet the quality condition. After re-ranking, these two resources will occupy positions 9 and 10, respectively” (analogous to modifying the ranked ordering of search results by inserting the additional result into the ranked ordering of search results at the insertion position) [0092] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
and causing display of the ranked ordering of search results to the user. (See paras. 29-30, wherein returning search results to the user process are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
However, Upstill fails to disclose search result ranking for searches in a hierarchically organized workspaces; wherein each page is a parent block including one or more child blocks, wherein the parent block and the one or more child blocks for each page are stored at a server associated with the hierarchically organized workspace, wherein each block has a set of attributes associated with features, and wherein the one or more child blocks includes a title block associated with an attribute associated with page title; generating, based at least in part on the search string, a search query for a search engine; determining, by the ranking model, a ranked ordering of search results in the first subset of search results by determining a similarity between the search query and the page title of each page associated with the first subset of search results; ordering the pages associated with the first subset of search results based on the determined ranking.
On the other hand, Jain teaches search result ranking for searches in a hierarchically organized workspaces; (See Figs. 1, 2, paras. 7, 14, wherein hierarchy of documents, hierarchy structure-ranking algorithm are disclosed; as taught by Jain.)
wherein each page is a parent block including one or more child blocks, (See Figs. 1, 2, paras. 7, 14-16, wherein hierarchy of documents, hierarchy structure-ranking algorithm, parent and child pages are disclosed; as taught by Jain.)
wherein the parent block and the one or more child blocks for each page are stored at a server associated with the hierarchically organized workspace, (See Figs. 1, 2, paras. 7, 16-17, wherein hierarchy of documents, hierarchy structure-ranking algorithm, parent and child pages are disclosed; as taught by Jain.)
wherein each block has a set of attributes associated with features, and wherein the one or more child blocks includes a title block associated with an attribute associated with page title; (See Fig. 4, paras. 18, 22, wherein keyword ranking and various attributes, such as title are disclosed; as taught by Jain.)
generating, based at least in part on the search string, a search query for a search engine; (See Fig. 1, paras. 16, 24, wherein search engine features to extract and display documents and web pages in which “correlation between keywords in parent and child pages allows the search engine to extract and display appropriate documents or web pages that have structural and often symbolic relevance within a website and in comparison to other website content. This fact is utilized by the algorithm. As an example, a search for "cnn business news" will first yield pages from "www.cnn.com">"news">"business" sections as compared to other pages with these keywords” [0016] are disclosed; as taught by Jain.)
determining, by the ranking model, a ranked ordering of search results in the first subset of search results by determining a similarity between the search query and the page title of each page associated with the first subset of search results; (See Fig. 1, paras. 16, 18-19, 24, wherein search engine features to extract and display documents and web pages in which “correlation between keywords in parent and child pages allows the search engine to extract and display appropriate documents or web pages that have structural and often symbolic relevance within a website and in comparison to other website content. This fact is utilized by the algorithm. As an example, a search for "cnn business news" will first yield pages from "www.cnn.com">"news">"business" sections as compared to other pages with these keywords” [0016] are disclosed; as taught by Jain.)
ordering the pages associated with the first subset of search results based on the determined ranking. (See Fig. 1, paras. 16, 18, wherein ordering search documents process are disclosed; as taught by Jain.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Jain teachings in the Upstill system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the system for adaptive hierarchy structure ranking algorithm taught by Jain in the Upstill system for effective re-ranking resources based on categorical quality. In addition, both of the references (Upstill and Jain) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as presentation of query results. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As per claim 2, the combination of Upstill and Jain discloses comprising, prior to causing display of the ranked ordering of search results to the user: modifying the ranked ordering of search results, wherein modifying the ranked ordering of search results comprises: (See Figs. 2, 4-5, paras. 36, 82, wherein process of re-ranking resources are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
selecting at least one search result from the ranked ordering of search results; (See paras. 30, 43, 91-93, wherein ranking based on search scores for the resources and rank positions are disclosed, also See Fig. 2, paras. 36, 42-46, wherein quality ranking module functions on determining quality condition of resources are disclosed; as taught by Upstill)
and changing a position of the at least one search result in the ranked ordering of search results. (See paras. 91-93, wherein re-ranking of resources in which “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-ranked; the other resources that do are demoted to occupy the least significant ordinal positions in the proper subset. For example, assume the proper subset is 10 resources, and the resources at the third and fourth ordinal positions do not meet the quality condition. After re-ranking, these two resources will occupy positions 9 and 10, respectively” (analogous to changing a position of the at least one search result in the ranked ordering of search results) [0092] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
Claims 3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upstill et al. (U.S. Pub 2019/0155948; hereinafter “Upstill”) in view of Jain et al. (U.S. PGPub 2007/0162448; hereinafter “Jain”) and further in view of Shacham et al. (U.S. PGPub 2022/0327150; hereinafter “Shacham”).
As per claims 3 and 13, Upstill discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a search string from a user via a user interface; (See Fig. 2, para. 41, wherein receiving a query submitted by user in which “the category quality ranking module 120 receives, from the search system 110, a query submitted by a user device 106. The query has one or more terms” (analogous to search string) [0041] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
providing the search query to the search engine to cause the search engine to perform a search to determine a set of search results; (See Fig. 2, paras. 18-20, wherein search scores of resources for received query in which “the system receives a query and data indicating resources (analogous to search results) identified by a search operation as being responsive to the query. The resources are ranked according to a first order of responsiveness to the received query” [0018] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
accessing a set of search results from a search engine, wherein each search result of the set of search results comprises a page identifier that identifies a page corresponding to a search result of the set of search results; (See para. 29, wherein search system utilizing index to identify resources relevant to queries in which “A search result is data generated by the search system 110 that identifies a resource that satisfies a particular search query, and includes a resource locator, or some other identifier, for the resource. An example search result can include a web page title, a snippet of text extracted from the web page, and the URL of the web page” [0029], also See paras. 50-57, wherein quality condition for resource set, various features are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
selecting a subset of search results from the set of search results; (See Fig. 2, paras. 18-20, wherein search scores of resources for received query, selecting subset of resources in which “the system receives a query and data indicating resources (analogous to search results) identified by a search operation as being responsive to the query. The resources are ranked according to a first order of responsiveness to the received query. The system then optionally selects a proper subset of the resources (analogous to first subset), and determines whether the proper subset meets a quality condition based on a quality measure that is indicative of the quality of the resources in the proper subset and independent of search scores of the resources for received query” [0018] and “If the quality condition for the proper subset is met, then the system determines a quality score for each resource. The quality score is a measure of quality of the resource for the category to which the received query belongs” [0020] are disclosed, also See paras. 50-56, wherein quality condition for a resource set processes are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
accessing one or more page features corresponding to the pages identified in the subset of search results, wherein the one or more page features comprise the page title and at least one of: page edit date, page comment date, page creation date, page views, page authority score, or page verification status; (See paras. 29-30, wherein search system utilizing index to identify resources relevant to queries in which "A search result is data generated by the search system 110 that identifies a resource that satisfies a particular search query, and includes a resource locator, or some other identifier, for the resource. An example search result can include a web page title, a snippet of text extracted from the web page, and the URL of the web page" [0029] and “user feedback scores, and optionally a separate ranking of each resource relative to other resources ( e.g., an authority score)” [0030] are disclosed, also See paras. 50-57, wherein quality condition for resource set, various features are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
generating a rank-ordered set of search results from the subset of search results, wherein generating the rank-ordered set of search results comprises ranking the search results of the subset of search results; (See paras. 30, 43, 91-93, wherein ranking based on search scores for the resources and rank positions are disclosed, also See Fig. 2, paras. 36, 42-46, wherein quality ranking module functions on determining quality condition of resources are disclosed; as taught by Upstill)
modifying the rank-ordered set of search results by one or more of: adding a page associated with a user who caused accessing the set of search results, modifying a position of at least one search result of the rank-ordered set of search results, or inserting an additional search result from the set of search results into the rank-ordered set of search results, wherein the additional search result is not included in the subset of search results. (See Fig. 2, paras. 36, 42-46, wherein quality ranking module functions on determining quality condition of resources in which “If the proper subset does not meet the quality condition, e.g., if a threshold number of resources in the proper subset does not meet the quality condition, then the process 200 does not re-rank resources in proper subset according to quality scores (210). For example, the category quality ranking module 120 does not perform a subsequent scoring on the resources, and the search system 110 may then return search results to the user device 106 according to the first order, or may perform other post search operation processes before returning search results to the user device” (analogous to adding resource, additional result) [0046] are disclosed, also See paras. 91-93, wherein management of resources not meeting quality condition in which “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-scored based on quality scores, while the other resources that do not meet the popularity condition are not re-scored” [0091] and “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-ranked; the other resources (analogous to additional result) that do are demoted to occupy the least significant ordinal positions in the proper subset. For example, assume the proper subset is 10 resources, and the resources at the third and fourth ordinal positions do not meet the quality condition. After re-ranking, these two resources will occupy positions 9 and 10, respectively” (analogous to modifying position and inserting additional result) [0092] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
However, Upstill fails to disclose search result ranking for searches in a hierarchically organized workspaces; generating, based at least in part on the search string, a search query for a search engine; wherein each page is a parent block including one or more child blocks, wherein the parent block and the one or more child blocks for each page are stored at a server associated with the hierarchically organized workspace, wherein each block has a set of attributes associated with features, and wherein the one or more child blocks includes a title block associated with an attribute associated with page title; wherein generating the rank-ordered set of search results comprises determining a similarity between the search query and the page title of each page associated with the subset of search results; ordering the pages associated with the subset of search results based on the determined ranking.
On the other hand, Jain teaches search result ranking for searches in a hierarchically organized workspaces; (See Figs. 1, 2, paras. 7, 14, wherein hierarchy of documents, hierarchy structure-ranking algorithm are disclosed; as taught by Jain.)
generating, based at least in part on the search string, a search query for a search engine; (See Fig. 1, paras. 16, 24, wherein search engine features to extract and display documents and web pages in which “correlation between keywords in parent and child pages allows the search engine to extract and display appropriate documents or web pages that have structural and often symbolic relevance within a website and in comparison to other website content. This fact is utilized by the algorithm. As an example, a search for "cnn business news" will first yield pages from "www.cnn.com">"news">"business" sections as compared to other pages with these keywords” [0016] are disclosed; as taught by Jain.)
wherein each page is a parent block including one or more child blocks, (See Figs. 1, 2, paras. 7, 14-16, wherein hierarchy of documents, hierarchy structure-ranking algorithm, parent and child pages are disclosed; as taught by Jain.)
wherein the parent block and the one or more child blocks for each page are stored at a server associated with the hierarchically organized workspace, (See Figs. 1, 2, paras. 7, 16-17, wherein hierarchy of documents, hierarchy structure-ranking algorithm, parent and child pages are disclosed; as taught by Jain.)
wherein each block has a set of attributes associated with features, and wherein the one or more child blocks includes a title block associated with an attribute associated with page title; (See Fig. 4, paras. 18, 22, wherein keyword ranking and various attributes, such as title are disclosed; as taught by Jain.)
wherein generating the rank-ordered set of search results comprises determining a similarity between the search query and the page title of each page associated with the subset of search results; (See Fig. 1, paras. 16, 18-19, 24, wherein search engine features to extract and display documents and web pages in which “correlation between keywords in parent and child pages allows the search engine to extract and display appropriate documents or web pages that have structural and often symbolic relevance within a website and in comparison to other website content. This fact is utilized by the algorithm. As an example, a search for "cnn business news" will first yield pages from "www.cnn.com">"news">"business" sections as compared to other pages with these keywords” [0016] are disclosed; as taught by Jain.)
ordering the pages associated with the subset of search results based on the determined ranking. (See Fig. 1, paras. 16, 18, wherein ordering search documents process are disclosed; as taught by Jain.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Jain teachings in the Upstill system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the system for adaptive hierarchy structure ranking algorithm taught by Jain in the Upstill system for effective re-ranking resources based on categorical quality. In addition, both of the references (Upstill and Jain) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as presentation of query results. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
However, the combination of Upstill and Jain fails to disclose using a ranking model, wherein the ranking model comprises a trained machine learning model.
On the other hand, Shacham teaches using a ranking model, wherein the ranking model comprises a trained machine learning model. (See paras. 27, 55, 58, wherein ordering of search results computed by machine learning system are disclosed; as taught by Shacham.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Shacham teachings in the combination of Upstill and Jain system. Skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the system for providing relevance-ordered categories of information to taught by Shacham in the combination of Upstill and Jain system for effective re-ranking resources based on categorical quality. In addition, both of the references (Upstill, Jain, and Shacham) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as presentation of query results. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As per claims 5 and 15, the combination of Upstill, Jain, and Shacham discloses wherein modifying the rank-ordered set of search results comprises modifying a position of at least one search result of the rank-ordered set of search results, wherein modifying the position comprises: (See Figs. 2, 4-5, paras. 36, 82, wherein process of re-ranking resources are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
identifying a search result of the rank-ordered set of search results; (See paras. 30, 43, 91-93, wherein ranking based on search scores for the resources and rank positions are disclosed, also See Fig. 2, paras. 36, 42-46, wherein quality ranking module functions on determining quality condition of resources are disclosed; as taught by Upstill)
determining a first position of the identified search result, wherein the first position indicates a current position of the identified search result; (See paras. 83, 91-93, wherein ranking based on search scores for the resources, rank positions are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
determining a second position of the identified search result, wherein the second position indicates a new position of the identified search result, (See paras. 36-39, 91-93, wherein management of resources not meeting quality condition in which “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-scored based on quality scores (analogous to new position), while the other resources that do not meet the popularity condition are not re-scored” [0091] and “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-ranked; the other resources that do are demoted to occupy the least significant ordinal positions in the proper subset. For example, assume the proper subset is 10 resources, and the resources at the third and fourth ordinal positions do not meet the quality condition. After re-ranking, these two resources will occupy positions 9 and 10, respectively” (analogous to modifying position) [0092] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
and wherein the second position is a higher position than the first position, and re-ordering the rank-ordered set of search results to move the identified search result from the first position to the second position. (See paras. 36-39, 91-93, wherein management of resources not meeting quality condition in which “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-scored based on quality scores (analogous to re-ordering search results), while the other resources that do not meet the popularity condition are not re-scored” [0091] and “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-ranked; the other resources that do are demoted to occupy the least significant ordinal positions in the proper subset. For example, assume the proper subset is 10 resources, and the resources at the third and fourth ordinal positions do not meet the quality condition. After re-ranking, these two resources will occupy positions 9 and 10, respectively” (analogous to modifying position) [0092] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
As per claims 6 and 16, the combination of Upstill, Jain, and Shacham discloses wherein re-ordering the rank-ordered set of search results comprises: identifying a second search result that is positioned at the second position in the rank-ordered set of search results; (See paras. 36, 43, wherein re-ranked search results, ranked positions are disclosed, also See paras. 47-49, wherein re-ranking resources and providing user re-ranked order in which “the category quality ranking module 120 may adjust each search score of a resources based on the quality score, e.g. , by multiplying the search score by the quality score, or based on some other linear combination of the search score and quality score. Alternatively, the resources in the proper subset can be re-ranked solely on their corresponding quality scores and without regarding to the original search scores” [0048] and “After re-ranking, the search results identifying the proper subset of resources may be provided to the user device 106 according to the re-ranked order” [0049] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
and moving the second search result to the first position. (See paras. 36-39, 43, 91-93, wherein re-ranked search results, ranked positions, management of resources not meeting quality condition in which “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-scored based on quality scores (analogous to re-ordering search results), while the other resources that do not meet the popularity condition are not re-scored” [0091] and “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-ranked; the other resources that do are demoted to occupy the least significant ordinal positions in the proper subset. For example, assume the proper subset is 10 resources, and the resources at the third and fourth ordinal positions do not meet the quality condition. After re-ranking, these two resources will occupy positions 9 and 10, respectively” (analogous to modifying position) [0092] are disclosed, also See paras. 47-49, wherein re-ranking resources and providing user re-ranked order are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
As per claims 7 and 17, the combination of Upstill, Jain, and Shacham discloses wherein re-ordering the rank-ordered set of search results comprises: shifting a position of each search result at or below the second position to a lower position, wherein shifting the position moves each search result to a position one lower than a position in the rank-ordered set of search results. (See paras. 36-39, 43, 91-93, wherein re-ranked search results, ranked positions, management of resources not meeting quality condition in which “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-scored based on quality scores (analogous to re-ordering search results), while the other resources that do not meet the popularity condition are not re-scored” [0091] and “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-ranked; the other resources that do are demoted to occupy the least significant ordinal positions in the proper subset. For example, assume the proper subset is 10 resources, and the resources at the third and fourth ordinal positions do not meet the quality condition. After re-ranking, these two resources will occupy positions 9 and 10, respectively” (analogous to shifting the position moves each search result to a position one lower than a position) [0092] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
As per claims 8 and 18, the combination of Upstill, Jain, and Shacham discloses wherein modifying the rank-ordered set of search results comprises inserting an additional search result, wherein inserting the additional search result comprises: selecting the additional search result from the set of search results, wherein the additional search result is not included in the rank-ordered set of search results; (See Fig. 2, paras. 36, 42-46, wherein quality ranking module functions on determining quality condition of resources in which “If the proper subset does not meet the quality condition, e.g., if a threshold number of resources in the proper subset does not meet the quality condition, then the process 200 does not re-rank resources in proper subset according to quality scores (210). For example, the category quality ranking module 120 does not perform a subsequent scoring on the resources, and the search system 110 may then return search results to the user device 106 according to the first order, or may perform other post search operation processes before returning search results to the user device” (analogous to additional search result from the set of search results, wherein the additional search result is not included in the rank-ordered set of search results) [0046] are disclosed, also See paras. 91-93, wherein management of resources not meeting quality condition in which “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-scored based on quality scores, while the other resources that do not meet the popularity condition are not re-scored (analogous to second subset)” [0091] and “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-ranked; the other resources that do are demoted to occupy the least significant ordinal positions in the proper subset. For example, assume the proper subset is 10 resources, and the resources at the third and fourth ordinal positions do not meet the quality condition. After re-ranking, these two resources will occupy positions 9 and 10, respectively” [0092] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
determining an insertion position in the rank-ordered set of search results; (See Fig. 2, paras. 36, 42-46, wherein quality ranking module functions on determining quality condition of resources in which “If the proper subset does not meet the quality condition, e.g., if a threshold number of resources in the proper subset does not meet the quality condition, then the process 200 does not re-rank resources in proper subset according to quality scores (210). For example, the category quality ranking module 120 does not perform a subsequent scoring on the resources, and the search system 110 may then return search results to the user device 106 according to the first order, or may perform other post search operation processes before returning search results to the user device” (analogous to determining an insertion position in the rank-ordered set of search results) [0046] are disclosed, also See paras. 91-93, wherein management of resources not meeting quality condition in which “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-scored based on quality scores, while the other resources that do not meet the popularity condition are not re-scored” [0091] and “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-ranked; the other resources (analogous to additional result) that do are demoted to occupy the least significant ordinal positions in the proper subset. For example, assume the proper subset is 10 resources, and the resources at the third and fourth ordinal positions do not meet the quality condition. After re-ranking, these two resources will occupy positions 9 and 10, respectively” (analogous to insertion position in the rank-ordered set of search results) [0092] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
and inserting the additional search result into the rank-ordered set of search results at the insertion position, (See Fig. 2, paras. 36, 42-46, wherein quality ranking module functions on determining quality condition of resources in which “If the proper subset does not meet the quality condition, e.g., if a threshold number of resources in the proper subset does not meet the quality condition, then the process 200 does not re-rank resources in proper subset according to quality scores (210). For example, the category quality ranking module 120 does not perform a subsequent scoring on the resources, and the search system 110 may then return search results to the user device 106 according to the first order, or may perform other post search operation processes before returning search results to the user device” (analogous to additional result) [0046] are disclosed, also See paras. 91-93, wherein management of resources not meeting quality condition in which “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-scored based on quality scores, while the other resources that do not meet the popularity condition are not re-scored (analogous to second subset)” [0091] and “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-ranked; the other resources (analogous to additional result) that do are demoted to occupy the least significant ordinal positions in the proper subset. For example, assume the proper subset is 10 resources, and the resources at the third and fourth ordinal positions do not meet the quality condition. After re-ranking, these two resources will occupy positions 9 and 10, respectively” (analogous to inserting the additional search result into the rank-ordered set of search results) [0092] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
wherein the insertion position is within a threshold number of positions from a highest search result. (See para. 18, wherein threshold number of resources in proper subset are disclosed, also See paras. 91-93, wherein inserting position process in which “only resources in the proper subset that are determined to meet the quality condition are re-ranked; the other resources (analogous to additional result) that do are demoted to occupy the least significant ordinal positions in the proper subset. For example, assume the proper subset is 10 resources, and the resources at the third and fourth ordinal positions do not meet the quality condition. After re-ranking, these two resources will occupy positions 9 and 10, respectively” (analogous to inserting position is within a threshold number of positions from a highest search result) [0092] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
As per claims 9 and 19, the combination of Upstill and Jain fails to disclose identifying a search result to be removed, wherein the search result to be removed is a search result below a threshold ranking in the rank-ordered set of search results; and removing the identified search result to be removed.
On the other hand, Shacham teaches identifying a search result to be removed, wherein the search result to be removed is a search result below a threshold ranking in the rank-ordered set of search results; (See paras. 107, wherein overriding information with respect to threshold in which “certain likelihood values for certain categories of information may be overridden (analogous to removing process) if they are not likely to predict a meaningful correlation between a specific user and query and a particular category of information. For example, in some implementations, a calculated likelihood value may be reset to zero if any of the underlying values from which it was calculated are below a certain threshold. The resetting of likelihood values is depicted by the parenthetical zero values for map information and stock information in Table 6. In a case where calculated values are overridden, as shown, the system may order the categories of information in response to Joe's query” [0107] are disclosed; as taught by Shacham.)
and removing the identified search result to be removed. (See paras. 107, wherein overriding information with respect to threshold in which “certain likelihood values for certain categories of information may be overridden (analogous to removing process) if they are not likely to predict a meaningful correlation between a specific user and query and a particular category of information. For example, in some implementations, a calculated likelihood value may be reset to zero if any of the underlying values from which it was calculated are below a certain threshold. The resetting of likelihood values is depicted by the parenthetical zero values for map information and stock information in Table 6. In a case where calculated values are overridden, as shown, the system may order the categories of information in response to Joe's query” [0107] are disclosed; as taught by Shacham.)
See claims 3 and 13 for motivation above.
As per claim 10, the combination of Upstill, Jain, and Shacham discloses wherein the additional search result comprises a page that was newly created within a threshold period of time. (See paras. 35-36, wherein query time, navigational scores for queries in which “navigational scores for the queries and corresponding resources are stored in a navigation store 118 and may be accessed at query time to identify navigational scores of queries for resources, and to further identify navigational queries for a resource. For example, for a particular resource, each query having a navigational score that meets a navigational threshold may be considered to be a navigational query for that resource” (analogous to search result comprises a page that was newly created within a threshold period of time) [0035] are disclosed, also See Fig. 2, paras. 36, 42-46, wherein quality ranking module functions on determining quality condition of resources in which “If the proper subset does not meet the quality condition, e.g., if a threshold number of resources in the proper subset does not meet the quality condition, then the process 200 does not re-rank resources in proper subset according to quality scores (210). For example, the category quality ranking module 120 does not perform a subsequent scoring on the resources, and the search system 110 may then return search results to the user device 106 according to the first order, or may perform other post search operation processes before returning search results to the user device” (analogous to additional search result) [0046] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
As per claims 11 and 20, the combination of Upstill, Jain, and Shacham discloses wherein the additional search result is selected independent of a match score indicating a relevance of the additional search result. (See Fig. 2, paras. 18-20, wherein search scores of resources for received query in which “the system receives a query and data indicating resources (analogous to search results) identified by a search operation as being responsive to the query. The resources are ranked according to a first order of responsiveness to the received query. The system then optionally selects a proper subset of the resources, and determines whether the proper subset meets a quality condition based on a quality measure that is indicative of the quality of the resources in the proper subset and independent of search scores of the resources for received query” [0018] and “If the quality condition for the proper subset is met, then the system determines a quality score for each resource. The quality score is a measure of quality of the resource for the category to which the received query belongs” [0020] are disclosed, also See Fig. 2, paras. 36, 42-46, wherein quality ranking module functions on determining quality condition of resources in which “If the proper subset does not meet the quality condition, e.g., if a threshold number of resources in the proper subset does not meet the quality condition, then the process 200 does not re-rank resources in proper subset according to quality scores (210). For example, the category quality ranking module 120 does not perform a subsequent scoring on the resources, and the search system 110 may then return search results to the user device 106 according to the first order, or may perform other post search operation processes before returning search results to the user device” (analogous to additional search result) [0046] are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
As per claim 12, the combination of Upstill, Jain, and Shacham discloses wherein modifying the rank-ordered set of search results comprises adding the page associated with the user, wherein the page associated with the user comprises at least one of: a page edited by the user, a page created by the user, a page created by another user in a same team as the user, a page edited by another user in the same team as the user, a page created by another user in a same role as the user, or a page edited by another user in the same role as the user. (See Fig. 1, paras. 24-26, 28, wherein resource provided by publisher in which “website 104 includes one or more resources 105 associated with a domain name and hosted by one or more servers. An example website is a collection of web pages formatted in hypertext markup language (HTML) that can contain text, images, multimedia content, and programming elements, such as scripts. Each website 104 is maintained by a content publisher, which is an entity that controls, manages and/or owns the website” (analogous to page created by publisher) [0025] and “To facilitate searching of these resources 105, the search system 110 identifies the resources by crawling the publisher web sites 104 and indexing the resources provided by the publisher web sites 104. (analogous to a page created by the user). The indexed data are stored in an index” [0028] are disclosed, also See Figs. 2, 4-5, paras. 36, 82, wherein process of re-ranking resources are disclosed; as taught by Upstill.)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIN LIN M HTAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7293. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 7am-3pm, PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L. L. H./
Examiner, Art Unit 2153
/KAVITA STANLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights