DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to communications filed April 7, 2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 27, 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Status of Claims
Claim 1-21 are pending, of which claims 1, 13, and 17 are in independent form. Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 10-11, 17-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bousquet et al. (US 9,870,423) (hereinafter Bousquet) in view of Jagadeesan et al. (US 2019/0205476) (hereinafter Jagadeesan), and in further view of Prahladka et al. (US 2024/0281332)(hereinafter Prahladka).
Regarding claim 1, Bousquet teaches a method comprising: identifying, by a search engine, resources to be included as search results in a search result page for a query (see Fig. 2B, col. 16 ln 10-14, col. 27 ln 35-40, discloses identifying Uniform Resource Locator, URL (resources) included in search results for ‘washington dc’ query); and adding an independent content item summary control to the search result for the resource (see Fig. 2B, col. 16 ln 20-33, discloses adding an entity summary (independent content item summary control) for hyperlinks associated with points of interest in Washington DC).
Bousquet does not explicitly teach for at least one resource of the resources with a first uniform resource locator (URL) that is indexed by the search engine; each of the independent content items being content generated by a user and having a respective second URL that is indexed by the search engine; the independent content item summary control configured to initiate an independent content feed interface; and providing the search result page to a device associated with the query.
Jagadeesan teaches the independent content item summary control configured to initiate an independent content feed interface (see Fig. 2, element 220, para [0028-0029], discloses summary of business ‘kitchen sink’ interface allowing access to independent content feeds such as cards 246a-246c as shown in Fig. 2); and providing the search result page to a device associated with the query (see Figs. 2-3, para [0028], para [0035], discloses providing search results page to a device associated with query).
Bousquet/Jagadeesan are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bousquet to initiate an independent content feed from disclosure of Jagadeesan. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Jagadeesan as “providing the entity listing portal interface within a search results page for interaction by the user, and efficiently utilizes network resources, including conserving bandwidth of the network” (para [0010]) and initiating an independent content feed is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Bousquet/Jagadeesan do not explicitly teach for at least one resource of the resources with a first uniform resource locator (URL) that is indexed by the search engine; each of the independent content items being content generated by a user and having a respective second URL that is indexed by the search engine.
Prahladka teaches for at least one resource of the resources with a first uniform resource locator (URL) that is indexed by the search engine (see Fig. 2B,Fig. 3B, para [0051], para [0054], discloses search result link (resource) with links (URL) that are in a search index and allow user to click on search result link to an electronic document); each of the independent content items being content generated by a user and having a respective second URL that is indexed by the search engine (see Fig. 2A, Figs. 3B-3C, para [0083], para [0106], discloses keywords/key phrase (independent content items), generated by user in a search query, that are in a search index for describing content and have respective indexed links (second URL) to respective electronic documents in search index).
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bousquet/Jagadeesan to include search index from disclosure of Prahladka. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Prahladka as “improve search results and to automatically detect and correct search system issues” (para [0003]) and including search index is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 17, Bousquet teaches a method comprising: identifying, by a search engine, resources to be included as search results in a search result page for a query (see Fig. 2A, element 208A, col. 10 ln 5-7, col. 14 ln 52-54, discloses identifying URLs included as search results 208A for a query), at least one of the resources being an independent content item generated by a user and having a first uniform resource locator (URL) that anchors to another resource with a second URL that is not a resource included in the search results (see Fig. 2B, col. 8 ln 32-35, col. 16 ln 19-30, discloses identifying hyperlinks (second resource locators) for a number of Points of Interest in Washington DC (first resource locator) that is not included in search results, elements 271B, 272B, and 273B as shown in Fig. 2B are included in an entity summary, element 250B); generating, as the search result for the independent content item, an independent content item overview (see Fig. 2B, element 250B, col. 16 ln 20-24, discloses generating entity summary 250B (independent content item as shown in Fig. 2B).
Bousquet does not explicitly teach wherein the first URL and the second URL are both indexed by the search engine, providing the search result page, including the independent content item overview, to a device associated with the query.
Jagadeesan teaches providing the search result page, including the independent content item overview, to a device associated with the query (see Figs. 2-3, para [0028], para [0035], discloses providing search results page including independent content item overview to a device associated with query).
Bousquet/Jagadeesan are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bousquet to include independent content item overview in search results to device from disclosure of Jagadeesan. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Jagadeesan as “providing the entity listing portal interface within a search results page for interaction by the user, and efficiently utilizes network resources, including conserving bandwidth of the network” (para [0010]) and including independent content item overview in search results to device is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Bousquet/Jagadeesan do not explicitly teach wherein the first URL and the second URL are both indexed by the search engine.
Prahladka teaches wherein the first URL and the second URL are both indexed by the search engine (see Fig. 2A, Figs. 3B-3C, para [0051, 0083], para [0106], discloses links that are in a search index for describing content and have respective indexed links (URLs) to respective electronic documents in search index).
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bousquet/Jagadeesan to include search index from disclosure of Prahladka. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Prahladka as “improve search results and to automatically detect and correct search system issues” (para [0003]) and including search index is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 2, Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka teach a method of claim 1.
Bousquet does not explicitly teach receiving a selection of the independent content item summary control; and in response to receiving the selection, generating the independent content feed interface, the independent content feed interface including digest elements for independent content items anchored to the resource.
Jagadeesan teaches receiving a selection of the independent content item summary control (see Fig. 2, para [0029], discloses receiving a selection of ‘kitchen sink’ item summary control and providing possible actions for the user); and in response to receiving the selection, generating the independent content feed interface, the independent content feed interface including digest elements for independent content items anchored to the resource (see Fig. 2, para [0029], discloses generating an independent content feed in carousel portion that includes a plurality of cards in which a user can a social network review and ‘read and reply’ that enables user to provide a comment response).
Regarding claim 10, Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka teach a method of claim 1.
Bousquet does not explicitly teach wherein the quantity of independent content items anchored to the resource is stored as an attribute of the resource.
Jagadeesan teaches wherein the quantity of independent content items anchored to the resource is stored as an attribute of the resource (see Fig. 2, para [0029], discloses number of page views of URLs associated with entity).
Regarding claim 11, Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka teach a method of claim 1.
Bousquet further teaches wherein at least one search result of the search results is for an independent content item (see Fig. 2A, element 260A, col. 14 ln 59-67, discloses search results for independent content items ).
Regarding claim 18, Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka teach a method of claim 17.
Bousquet does not explicitly teach generating, on the search result page, a portion dedicated to search results for independent content items, the independent content item overview being located in the portion.
Jagadeesan teaches generating, on the search result page, a portion dedicated to search results for independent content items, the independent content item overview being located in the portion (see Fig. 2, para [0025], discloses generation of search results identifying entity (independent content items), in which the entity overview is located in element 206 portion of search results in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka teach a method of claim 17.
Bousquet does not explicitly wherein a format of the search result for the independent content item overview may be based on types of data attached to the independent content item.
Jagadeesan wherein a format of the search result for the independent content item overview may be based on types of data attached to the independent content item (see Fig. 2, para [0029], discloses carousel portion 244 that includes different types of data attached to respective card of plurality of cards ).
Claims 3-5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bousquet et al. (US 9,870,423) (hereinafter Bousquet) in view of Jagadeesan et al. (US 2019/0205476) (hereinafter Jagadeesan) and Prahladka as applied to claims 1 and 17, and in further view of Shukla et al. (US 2020/0133967) (hereinafter Shukla).
Regarding claim 3, Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka teach a method of claim 1.
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka does not explicitly teach wherein generating the independent content feed interface includes ranking the independent content items based at least on quality scores and topicality scores, the topicality scores representing topicality to the resource.
Shukla teaches wherein generating the independent content feed interface includes ranking the independent content items based at least on quality scores and topicality scores (see Fig. 28, para [0045], para [0377], para [0401], discloses ranking web documents based on site-quality scores and topicality scores), the topicality scores representing topicality to the resource (see Fig. 25, para [0330], discloses topicality scores for topicality signals providing how relevant a document is to a given topic).
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka/Shukla are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka to include quality scores and topicality scores from disclosure of Shukla. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Shukla as “provide an improved technical solution for online/web-based content search that facilitates learning from past documents that can be applied to future documents” (para [0164]) and including quality scores and topicality scores is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 4, Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka teach a method of claim 1.
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka does not explicitly teach wherein the topicality scores are generated by treating the independent content items as queries and the resource as a document in a query-to-document similarity process.
Shukla teaches wherein the topicality scores are generated by treating the independent content items as queries and the resource as a document in a query-to-document similarity process (see Fig. 19, para [0252], para [0268], discloses topicality to determine relevancy of document to a respective topic).
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka/Shukla are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka to include quality scores and topicality scores from disclosure of Shukla. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Shukla as “provide an improved technical solution for online/web-based content search that facilitates learning from past documents that can be applied to future documents” (para [0164]) and including quality scores and topicality scores is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 5, Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka teach a method of claim 1.
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka does not explicitly teach wherein a quality score for an independent content item is based at least on an engagement signal and a language quality signal.
Shukla teaches wherein a quality score for an independent content item is based at least on an engagement signal and a language quality signal (see Fig. 28, para [0245], para [0379-0380], discloses generating various signals for quality score).
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka/Shukla are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka to include quality scores and topicality scores from disclosure of Shukla. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Shukla as “provide an improved technical solution for online/web-based content search that facilitates learning from past documents that can be applied to future documents” (para [0164]) and including quality scores and topicality scores is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 19, Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka teach a method of claim 17.
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka does not explicitly teach wherein the independent content items are ranked based on creator scores, where a creator score for a creator is based on quality scores for independent content items attributed to the creator.
Shukla teaches wherein the independent content items are ranked based on creator scores see Fig. 28, para [0045], para [0377], para [0401], discloses ranking web documents based on site-quality scores, topicality scores, and document score (creator score)), where a creator score for a creator is based on quality scores for independent content items attributed to the creator (see para [0311], para [0349], discloses document score based on user signals that includes monitored user activity and user feedback, including a respective user’s time spent on an application and user’s frequency of engagement).
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka/Shukla are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka to include quality scores and topicality scores from disclosure of Shukla. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Shukla as “provide an improved technical solution for online/web-based content search that facilitates learning from past documents that can be applied to future documents” (para [0164]) and including quality scores and topicality scores is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Claims 6-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bousquet et al. (US 9,870,423) (hereinafter Bousquet) in view of Jagadeesan et al. (US 2019/0205476) (hereinafter Jagadeesan) and Prahladka as applied to claims 1 and 17, and in further view of Shukla et al. (US 2020/0133967) (hereinafter Shukla) and Yates (US 2021/0382952) (hereinafter Yates).
Regarding claim 6, Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka teach a method of claim 1.
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka/Shukla does not explicitly teach wherein a quality score for an independent content item is based at least on a classification from a generative model given the independent content item.
Yates teaches wherein a quality score for an independent content item is based at least on a classification from a generative model given the independent content item (see para [0073], para [0082], discloses machine learning models predicting probability of higher quality items and quality score is a function of predicted item topics and user interest).
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka/Shukla/Yates are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka/Shukla to include quality scores based on a classification from model from disclosure of Shukla. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Shukla as “increase awareness about products or services to online system users” (para [0003]) and including quality scores based on a classification from model is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 7, Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka teach a method of claim 1.
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka/Shukla does not explicitly teach wherein the ranking is further based on creator scores, where a creator score for a creator is based on the quality scores for independent content items attributed to the creator.
Yates teaches wherein the ranking is further based on creator scores, where a creator score for a creator is based on the quality scores for independent content items attributed to the creator (see para [0092], discloses creator creating high quality content based on quality scores using number of impressions in recent past).
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka/Shukla/Yates are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka/Shukla to include quality scores based on a classification from model from disclosure of Shukla. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Shukla as “increase awareness about products or services to online system users” (para [0003]) and including quality scores based on a classification from model is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 8, Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka teach a method of claim 1.
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka/Shukla does not explicitly teach wherein the ranking filters out independent content items that have a quality score that fails to meet a quality threshold.
Yates teaches wherein the ranking filters out independent content items that have a quality score that fails to meet a quality threshold (see Fig. 5, para [0094], para [0096-0097], discloses quality score controls that include threshold).
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka/Shukla/Yates are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka/Shukla to include quality scores based on a classification from model from disclosure of Shukla. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Shukla as “increase awareness about products or services to online system users” (para [0003]) and including quality scores based on a classification from model is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 20, Bousquet/Jagadeesan teach a method of claim 17.
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Shukla does not explicitly teach wherein the ranking filters out independent content items that have a quality score that fails to meet a quality threshold.
Yates teaches wherein the ranking filters out independent content items that have a quality score that fails to meet a quality threshold (see Fig. 5, para [0094], para [0096-0097], discloses quality score controls that include threshold).
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka/Shukla/Yates are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka/Shukla to include quality scores based on a classification from model from disclosure of Shukla. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Shukla as “increase awareness about products or services to online system users” (para [0003]) and including quality scores based on a classification from model is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bousquet et al. (US 9,870,423) (hereinafter Bousquet) in view of Jagadeesan et al. (US 2019/0205476) (hereinafter Jagadeesan) and Prahladka as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Thakkar et al. (US 2021/0334305) (hereinafter Thakkar).
Regarding claim 9, Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka teach a method of claim 1.
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka does not explicitly teach wherein the independent content items anchored to the resource have a publisher that differs from a publisher of the resource.
Thakkar teaches teach wherein the independent content items anchored to the resource have a publisher that differs from a publisher of the resource (see para [0015], para [0021], discloses applications created by third-party developers).
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka/Thakkar are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka to include publishers that differs from a publisher of a resource from disclosure of Thakkar. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Thakkar as “efficiently, accurately, and reliably select an application that can perform the type of action on the requested entity” (para [0017]) and including publishers that differs from a publisher of a resource is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 12, Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka teach a method of claim 1.
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka does not explicitly teach triggering immediate crawling of a new independent content item; crawling the new independent content item; and adding the new independent content item to an index for the search engine.
Thakkar teaches triggering immediate crawling of a new independent content item (see para [0043], para [0053], discloses crawling web pages); crawling the new independent content item (see para [0090], discloses crawling web pages to identify inventory of entities); and adding the new independent content item to an index for the search engine (see Fig. 1, para [0043], para [0055], discloses an index of web pages (resources) associated with keywords with web pages including entities (independent content items)).
Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka/Thakkar are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka to include publishers that differs from a publisher of a resource from disclosure of Thakkar. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Thakkar as “efficiently, accurately, and reliably select an application that can perform the type of action on the requested entity” (para [0017]) and including publishers that differs from a publisher of a resource is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Claims 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakkar et al. (US 2021/0334305)(hereinafter Thakker) in view of Bousquet et al. (US 9,870,423) (hereinafter Bousquet) and Jagadeesan and in further view of Prahladka.
Regarding claim 13, Thakkar teaches a system comprising: an index associating terms with resources, the resources including the independent content items generated by users (see Fig. 1, para [0043], para [0055], discloses an index of web pages (resources) associated with keywords with web pages including entities (independent content items)); at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (see Fig. 4, discloses processor and memory), cause the system to perform operations including: identifying, using the index, resources to be included as search results of a search result page for a query (see para [0020], par [0034], para [0044], discloses identifying indexed web pages to match queries and generate action recommendations (search results) to indicate entities of applications that can perform an action).
Thakkar does not explicitly teach memory storing independent content items, each independent content item being anchored to a resource with a respective uniform resource locator URL) that is indexed by a search engine and each independent content item having a respective URL that is indexed by the search engine; for at least one resource of the resources: determining that a quantity of the independent content items are anchored to the respective URL or the resource, and adding an independent content item summary control to the search result for the resource, the independent content item summary control configured to initiate an independent content feed interface, and providing the search result page to a device associated with the query.
Bousquet teaches memory storing independent content items (see Fig. 2B, Fig. 8, col. 8 ln 32-35, col. 16 ln 19-30, col. 22 ln 27-29, discloses storing entities (content items) each with respective hyperlinks for a number of Points of Interest in Washington DC); for at least one resource of the resources: determining that a quantity of the independent content items are anchored to the respective URL or the resource (see Fig. 2B, col. 7 ln 40-43, col. 16 ln 24-30, discloses hyperlinks for a number (quantity) of Points of Interest in Washington DC that are ordered based on a ranking associated with related entities, elements 271B, 272B, and 273B as shown in Fig. 2B), and adding an independent content item summary control to the search result for the resource (see Fig. 2B, col. 16 ln 20-33, discloses adding an entity summary (independent content item summary control) for hyperlinks associated with points of interest in Washington DC as shown in Fig. 2B).
Thakkar/Bousquet are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bousquet to add an independent content summary control from disclosure of Thakkar. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Thakkar as “provide improved search results to users of the applications” (col. 2 ln 35-36) and adding an independent content summary control is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Thakkar/Bousquet do not explicitly teach each independent content item being anchored to a resource with a respective uniform resource locator URL) that is indexed by a search engine and each independent content item having a respective URL that is indexed by the search engine, the independent content item summary control configured to initiate an independent content feed interface, and providing the search result page to a device associated with the query.
Jagadeesan teaches the independent content item summary control configured to initiate an independent content feed interface (see Fig. 2, element 220, para [0028-0029], discloses summary of business ‘kitchen sink’ interface allowing access to independent content feeds such as cards 246a-246c as shown in Fig. 2), and providing the search result page to a device associated with the query (see Figs. 2-3, para [0028], para [0035], discloses providing search results page to a device associated with query).
Thakkar/Bousquet/Jagadeesan are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bousquet to initiate an independent content feed from disclosure of Jagadeesan. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Jagadeesan as “providing the entity listing portal interface within a search results page for interaction by the user, and efficiently utilizes network resources, including conserving bandwidth of the network” (para [0010]) and initiating an independent content feed is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Thakkar/Bousquet/Jagadeesan do not explicitly teach each independent content item being anchored to a resource with a respective uniform resource locator URL) that is indexed by a search engine and each independent content item having a respective URL that is indexed by the search engine.
Pradladka teaches each independent content item being anchored to a resource with a respective uniform resource locator (URL) that is indexed by a search engine (see Fig. 2B,Fig. 3B, para [0051], para [0054], discloses search result link (resource) with links (URL) that are in a search index and allow user to click on search result link to an electronic document), and each independent content item having a respective URL that is indexed by the search engine (see Fig. 2A, Figs. 3B-3C, para [0083], para [0106], discloses keywords/key phrase (independent content items), generated by user in a search query, that are in a search index for describing content and have respective indexed links (second URL) to respective electronic documents in search index).
Thakkar/Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Thakkar/Bousquet/Jagadeesan to include search index from disclosure of Prahladka. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Prahladka as “improve search results and to automatically detect and correct search system issues” (para [0003]) and including search index is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 14, Thakkar/Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka teach a system of claim 13.
Thakkar/Bousquet does not explicitly teach receiving a selection of the independent content item summary control; and in response to receiving the selection, generating the independent content feed interface, the independent content feed interface including digest elements for independent content items anchored to the resource.
Jagadeesan teaches receiving a selection of the independent content item summary control (see Fig. 2, para [0029], discloses receiving a selection of ‘kitchen sink’ item summary control and providing possible actions for the user); and in response to receiving the selection, generating the independent content feed interface, the independent content feed interface including digest elements for independent content items anchored to the resource (see Fig. 2, para [0029], discloses generating an independent content feed in carousel portion that includes a plurality of cards in which a user can a social network review and ‘read and reply’ that enables user to provide a comment response).
Regarding claim 16, Thakkar/Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka teach a system of claim 13.
Thakkar/Bousquet does not explicitly teach wherein the quantity of independent content items anchored to the resource is stored as an attribute of the resource in the index.
Jagadeesan teaches wherein the quantity of independent content items anchored to the resource is stored as an attribute of the resource in the index (see Fig. 2, para [0017], para [0029], discloses number of page views of URLs associated with entity).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thakkar et al. (US 2021/0334305)(hereinafter Thakker) in view of Bousquet et al. (US 9,870,423) (hereinafter Bousquet) and in further view of Jagadeesan et al. (US 2019/0205476) (hereinafter Jagadeesan) and Prahladka and Shukla.
Regarding claim 15, Thakkar/Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka teach a system of claim 13.
Thakkar/Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka does not explicitly teach wherein generating the independent content feed interface includes ranking the independent content items based at least on quality scores, creator scores, and topicality scores, the topicality scores representing topicality to the resource, and where a creator score for a creator is based on the quality scores for independent content items attributed to the creator.
Shukla teaches wherein generating the independent content feed interface includes ranking the independent content items based at least on quality scores, creator scores, and topicality scores (see Fig. 28, para [0045], para [0377], para [0401], discloses ranking web documents based on site-quality scores, topicality scores, and document score (creator score)), the topicality scores representing topicality to the resource (see Fig. 25, para [0330], discloses topicality scores for topicality signals providing how relevant a document is to a given topic), and where a creator score for a creator is based on the quality scores for independent content items attributed to the creator (see para [0311], para [0349], discloses document score based on user signals that includes monitored user activity and user feedback, including a respective user’s time spent on an application and user’s frequency of engagement).
Thakkar/Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka/Shukla are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Thakkar/Bousquet/Jagadeesan/Prahladka to include quality scores and topicality scores from disclosure of Shukla. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Shukla as “provide an improved technical solution for online/web-based content search that facilitates learning from past documents that can be applied to future documents” (para [0164]) and including quality scores and topicality scores is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY HARMON whose telephone number is (571)270-5861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
/Courtney Harmon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights