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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 18/458,817 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the related patent application and is covered by the related patent application. Both applications are claiming common subject matter.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application 19/059386
Application No. 18/458817
2. A method comprising:
receiving a request for a first content item that is relevant to searched content item; determining result content items based on a similarity relationship to the searched content item and a metric of how likely a user account is to relate the first content item to the searched content item; and sending at least one result content item of the result content items in response to the request.
A method for ranking content items comprising:
identifying a plurality of result content items matching at least one criterion, the plurality of result content items identified from content items in a collection of content items; ranking the content items in the plurality of result content items based on a similarity relationship that defines a relative likeness between the content items in the plurality of result content items, and an influence relationship indicative of a correlation between user engagement between pairs of content items in the content items in the plurality of result content items.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention recites “receiving a request for a first content item that is relevant to searched content item; determining result content items based on a similarity relationship to the searched content item and a metric of how likely a user account is to relate the first content item to the searched content item; and sending at least one result content item of the result content items in response to the request.” These limitations describe an abstract idea, namely the mental process of evaluating relationships between information, applying criteria (similarity relationships and user-based metrics), and generating a result that can be performed by using mere thought or using pen and paper.
The claims fail to recite any computer processor, or other hardware components necessary to perform the recited functions. As such the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and instead merely describe a software based concept or result without any recited structure for implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms included in the claim limitations including: “a metric of how likely a user account”. These terns are dot defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a particularly defined definition or process to describe the function of “how likely” and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dassa et al. (Patent No. 8,756,224 filed June 16, 2011, hereinafter Dassa) and Wang et al. (Publication No. 2015/0120753 filed October 24, 2013, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding Claims 2, 10, and 16, Dassa teaches receiving a request for a first content item that is relevant to searched content item (Abstract, specifically, detecting similarities between each of plurality of content snippets; column 8, lines 61-65, real-time ranking module (element 240) or any other component of the application can extract entities, keywords, and/or other elements from the received set of content snippets for comparison with entities, keywords, and/or other elements in the trend index. Column 9, lines 1-6, real-time ranking module (element 240) can match trend data and user influence data to information obtained from the content snippets and generate a score for each of the snippets); determining result content items based on a similarity relationship to the searched content item (Abstract, specifically, detecting similarities between each of plurality of content snippets; column 8, lines 61-65, real-time ranking module (element 240) or any other component of the application can extract entities, keywords, and/or other elements from the received set of content snippets for comparison with entities, keywords, and/or other elements in the trend index. Column 9, lines 1-6, real-time ranking module (element 240) can match trend data and user influence data to information obtained from the content snippets and generate a score for each of the snippets) and is to relate the first content item to the searched content item (Abstract, specifically, detecting similarities between each of plurality of content snippets; column 8, lines 61-65, real-time ranking module (element 240) or any other component of the application can extract entities, keywords, and/or other elements from the received set of content snippets for comparison with entities, keywords, and/or other elements in the trend index. Column 9, lines 1-6, real-time ranking module (element 240) can match trend data and user influence data to information obtained from the content snippets and generate a score for each of the snippets); and sending at least one result content item of the result content items in response to the request (Abstract, specifically, detecting similarities between each of plurality of content snippets; column 8, lines 61-65, real-time ranking module (element 240) or any other component of the application can extract entities, keywords, and/or other elements from the received set of content snippets for comparison with entities, keywords, and/or other elements in the trend index. Column 9, lines 1-6, real-time ranking module (element 240) can match trend data and user influence data to information obtained from the content snippets and generate a score for each of the snippets).
Dassa does not expressly teach a metric of how likely a user account is to relate the first content item.
Wang teaches a metric of how likely a user account is to relate the first content item (see Abstract, indexing content based upon index features (e.g., temporal features, user engagement features, and/or outlier features), and/or for providing content within a search result interface based upon such index features and/or rankings. For example, user reaction data associated with content (e.g., a microblog message, a social network post, etc.) may be evalutated to generate a user engagement feature that may be constrained to a time window feature (e.g., the number of shares of a message within the first 10 minutes from publication of the message) to create an index feature for indexing the content within a content index).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of Wang’s method with Dassa’s method because Wang’s method provides a user engagement feature constrained to a time window by indexed featured query content.
15. Regarding Claims 3 and 11, Wang teaches the metric of how likely the user account is to relate the first content item to the searched content item is an influence relationship metric (see Abstract, indexing content based upon index features (e.g., temporal features, user engagement features, and/or outlier features), and/or for providing content within a search result interface based upon such index features and/or rankings. For example, user reaction data associated with content (e.g., a microblog message, a social network post, etc.) may be evalutated to generate a user engagement feature that may be constrained to a time window feature (e.g., the number of shares of a message within the first 10 minutes from publication of the message) to create an index feature for indexing the content within a content index).
Claims 4, 8, 9, 12, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dassa et al. (Patent No. 8,756,224 filed June 16, 2011, hereinafter Dassa) and Wang et al. (Publication No. 2015/0120753 filed October 24, 2013, hereinafter Wang) as applied to claims 2, 10, and 16 above, and further in view of Duan et al. (Publication No. 2020/0401634 filed June 20, 2019, hereinafter Duan).
Regarding Claims 4, 12, and 17, Dassa teaches determining the influence relationship metric between the first content item and a second content item in a collection of content items based on content item transitions (column 7, lines 66-67, column 8, lines 1-2, user influence data can be indexed into trend index 230. For example, a real-time ranking module 240 of the application can determine real-time online trends (e.g., the latest trends and topics)) and review data (column 12, lines 44-45, the user also reviews recent news and postings).
Dassa and Wang do not expressly teach target campaign data.
However, Duan teaches targeted campaign data ([0044] targeted by the campaign).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of Duan’s method with Dassa’s and Wang’s method because Duan’s method provides generating scores for the ranking of content items and a subset of content items being selected for delivery based on the ranking.
Claims 8, 9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dassa et al. (Patent No. 8,756,224 filed June 16, 2011, hereinafter Dassa) and Wang et al. (Publication No. 2015/0120753 filed October 24, 2013, hereinafter Wang) as applied to claims 2, 10, and 16 above, and further in view of Yee et al. (Patent No. 9,129,227 filed September 8, 2015, hereinafter Yee).
Regarding Claim 8, Dassa teaches prior to the determining the result content items, creating a graph based on the similarity relationship between the searched content item and candidate content items considered potentially relevant to the searched content item (Abstract, lines 7-8, user influence information, column 2, lines 66-67, column 3, lines 1, detecting similarities between each of the plurality of content snippets and the determined real-time trend information, column 7, lines 26-29, User influence data can be used to provide an indication that allows real-time content to be differentiated based on the influence score of the user).
However, Dassa and Wang do not expressly teach filtering the graph to identify a top n edges, wherein the top n edges identify the result content items.
Yee teaches filtering the graph to identify a top n edges, wherein the top n edges identify the result content items (column 8, lines 38 & 41, topic graph includes a set of related topic nodes also including topic clusters e.g., edges)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of Yee’s method with Dassa’s and Wang’s method because Yee’s method provides generating the ranking of content items based on determined probabilities and a selection of a subset of content items being recommended to a user based on the ranked content items.
Regarding Claims 9 and 21, Yee teaches constructing a graph of relationships between content items in a collection of content items, wherein edges connecting the content items to other content items are defined by the content items connected by the edges (Abstract, ranking the plurality of content items, column 8, lines 38 & 41, topic graph includes a set of related topic nodes also including topic clusters e.g., edges), and
filtering the graph to identify a top n edges, wherein the top n edges identify the result content items column 8, lines 38 & 41, topic graph includes a set of related topic nodes also including topic clusters e.g., edges).
Dassa teaches the relevance value being made up of the similarity relationship and the influence relationship metric and a relevance value that represents a relevance (Abstract, lines 7-8, user influence information, column 7, lines 26-29, User influence data can be used to provide an indication that allows real-time content to be differentiated based on the influence score of the user.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 13-15, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record, Dassa, (Patent No. 8,756,224) teaches detecting similarities between each of a plurality of content snippets.
Next, the prior art of record, Rodrigues (Publication No. 2022/0114205) teaches ranking signals for content items given a weighted average.
However, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest in combination with a context -driven factor from the result content items, wherein when ranking the result content items, the similarity relationship is weighted by the contest-driven factor and the influence relationship metric is weighted by the inverse of the context driven factor.
Next, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest in combination with the context-driven factor is a quantification of popularity of at least one content item in the result content items, and wherein the content-driven factor is smaller when the at least one content item in the result content items is more popular.
Also, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest in combination with sending a targeted content item along with the at least one result content item in response to the request, wherein the targeted content item is targeted to be presented in association the at least one result content item.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERYL R LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 571-272-4098. 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.
/CHERYL LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166 April 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights