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 instant office action having application number 19/182,745, filed on April 18, 2025, has claims 21-40 pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2025 and 12/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 21 and 33 similarly recite “receiving keywords for the website; retrieving, based on the received keywords, web content from a plurality of web content sources; generating a set of topics semantically relevant to the keywords based on the retrieved web content; determining a topic authority score for each topic in the set of semantically relevant topics; ranking topics in the set of semantically relevant topics based on the respective topic authority score; selecting a subset of the keywords based on the ranked topics in the set of semantically relevant topics; and returning the subset of the keywords as suggestions for improving search engine optimization (SEO) of the website.”, these limitations as drafted , are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the limitations pertaining to “receiving”, “retrieving”, “generating”, “determining”, “ranking”, “selecting” and “returning” in the context of this claim encompass the user analyzing the data and judging documents as relevant based on the topic. 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. Further, the “compute” limitations appear to also be directed to a mathematical calculation. Therefore, they also would fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” groups of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 21 and 33 recite multiple abstract ideas (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations” The system, memory, communication interface, and processor(s), are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional elements pertaining to “retrieve” represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception and is a mere data gathering step. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, The additional elements pertaining to “retrieve” represents insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claims 1, 11, 20 are not patent eligible.
With respect to claim 22, the limitations are directed towards “wherein retrieving the web content comprises crawling the web content from the plurality of web content sources.” These additional elements merely confine the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 22 does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claims 23 and 34, the limitations are directed towards “wherein the topic authority score comprises a topic relevance score indicating a strength of relevance between the keywords and the corresponding topic.” These additional elements merely confine the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 23 and 34 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 24, the limitations are directed towards “wherein the operations further comprise determining a volume score for each topic in the set of semantically relevant topics, wherein the volume score is determined based on a quantity of the web content having the corresponding topic.” These additional elements merely confine the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 24 does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claims 25 and 35, the limitations are directed towards “wherein the returning the subset of the keywords comprises presenting the subset of the keywords in a graphical user interface (GUI) at a display of a client computing device associated with the website.” These additional elements merely confine the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 25 and 35 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claims 26 and 36, the limitations are directed towards “wherein the received keywords comprise topics a user plans to use in the website, and the operations further comprise generating a set of keywords based on the topics the user plans to use in the website and the retrieved web content.” These additional elements merely confine the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 26 and 36 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claims 27 and 37, the limitations are directed towards “receiving a second website; identifying web content in the second website based on crawling the second website; and generating a content comparison between the web content in the second website and web content in the website.” These additional elements merely confine the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 27 and 37 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 28, the limitations are directed towards “wherein the second website comprises a competitor website.” These additional elements merely confine the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 28 does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claims 29 and 38, the limitations are directed towards “wherein generating the content comparison comprises comparing the web content in the second website and the web content in the website that includes at least one topic in the set of semantically relevant topics.” These additional elements merely confine the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 29 and 38 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claims 30 and 39, the limitations are directed towards “wherein the operations further comprise generating recommendations to add keywords associated with the at least one topic to the web content in the website, based on the content comparison, to improve SEO of the website relative to the second website.” These additional elements merely confine the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 30 and 39 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 31 and 40, the limitations are directed towards “wherein the operations further comprise determining a competition value for each keyword of the keywords, wherein the competition value indicates a quantity of third parties bidding on the keyword relative to other keywords amongst the keywords.” These additional elements merely confine the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 31 and 40 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respect to claim 32, the limitations are directed towards “wherein the competition value indicates a relative demand of the keyword amongst the keywords.” These additional elements merely confine the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 32 does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11768901. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21-40 under examination are obvious, respectively, by claims 1-20 of the reference Patent. Every limitation in the instant application under examination claims are recited in the conflicting reference patent claims.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the independent claim 21, of the instant application to acquiring, by a crawler, content from a plurality of different web content sources via one or more networks, applying, by the topic tool, to the acquired content an ensemble of algorithms; one or more key phrase extraction algorithms to generate a set of keywords based on at least the acquired content, one or more graph analyses algorithms to identify a set of topics semantically relevant to the set of keywords generated using the one or more key phrase extraction algorithms, and one or more natural language processing algorithms to determine a relevance score for each topic of the set of semantically relevant topics.
Please, see the comparison table below:
Instant Application 19/182745
Patent No. 11768901
33. (New) A method for improving organic traffic to a website based on keywords having topical authority, the method comprising: receiving keywords for the website; retrieving, based on the received keywords, web content from a plurality of web content sources; generating a set of topics semantically relevant to the keywords based on the retrieved web content; determining a topic authority score for each topic in the set of semantically relevant topics; ranking topics in the set of semantically relevant topics based on the respective topic authority score; selecting a subset of the keywords based on the ranked topics in the set of semantically relevant topics; and returning the subset of the keywords as suggestions for improving search engine optimization (SEO) of the website.
34. (New) The method of claim 33, wherein the topic authority score comprises a topic relevance score indicating a strength of relevance between the keywords and the corresponding topic.
35. (New) The method of claim 33, wherein the returning the subset of the keywords comprises presenting the subset of the keywords in a graphical user interface (GUI) at a display of a client computing device associated with the website.
36. (New) The method of claim 33, wherein the received keywords comprise topics a user plans to use in the website, and the operations further comprise generating a set of keywords based on the topics the user plans to use in the website and the retrieved web content.
37. (New) The method of claim 33, further comprising: receiving a second website; identifying web content in the second website based on crawling the second website; and generating a content comparison between the web content in the second website and web content in the website.
38. (New) The method of claim 37, wherein generating the content comparison comprises comparing the web content in the second website and the web content in the website that includes at least one topic in the set of semantically relevant topics.
39. (New) The system of claim 38, further comprising generating recommendations to add keywords associated with the at least one topic to the web content in the website, based on the content comparison, to improve SEO of the website relative to the second website.
40. (New) The method of claim 33, further comprising determining a competition value for each keyword of the keywords, wherein the competition value indicates at least one of (i) a quantity of third parties bidding on the keyword relative to other keywords amongst the keywords or (ii) a relative demand of the keyword amongst the keywords.
21. (New) A system for improving organic traffic to a website based on keywords having topical authority, the system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising :receiving keywords for the website; retrieving, based on the received keywords, web content from a plurality of web content sources; generating a set of topics semantically relevant to the keywords based on the retrieved web content; determining a topic authority score for each topic in the set of semantically relevant topics; ranking topics in the set of semantically relevant topics based on the respective topic authority score; selecting a subset of the keywords based on the ranked topics in the set of semantically relevant topics; and returning the subset of the keywords as suggestions for improving search engine optimization (SEO) of the website.
22. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein retrieving the web content comprises crawling the web content from the plurality of web content sources.
23. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the topic authority score comprises a topic relevance score indicating a strength of relevance between the keywords and the corresponding topic.
24. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the operations further comprise determining a volume score for each topic in the set of semantically relevant topics, wherein the volume score is determined based on a quantity of the web content having the corresponding topic.
25. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the returning the subset of the keywords comprises presenting the subset of the keywords in a graphical user interface (GUI) at a display of a client computing device associated with the website.
26. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the received keywords comprise topics a user plans to use in the website, and the operations further comprise generating a set of keywords based on the topics the user plans to use in the website and the retrieved web content.
27. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a second website; identifying web content in the second website based on crawling the second website; and generating a content comparison between the web content in the second website and web content in the website.
28. (New) The system of claim 27, wherein the second website comprises a competitor website.
29. (New) The system of claim 27, wherein generating the content comparison comprises comparing the web content in the second website and the web content in the website that includes at least one topic in the set of semantically relevant topics.
30. (New) The system of claim 29, wherein the operations further comprise generating recommendations to add keywords associated with the at least one topic to the web content in the website, based on the content comparison, to improve SEO of the website relative to the second website.
31. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the operations further comprise determining a competition value for each keyword of the keywords, wherein the competition value indicates a quantity of third parties bidding on the keyword relative to other keywords amongst the keywords.
32. (New) The system of claim 31, wherein the competition value indicates a relative demand of the keyword amongst the keywords.
1. A method for generating from one or more keywords a list of related topics for organic search, the method comprising: (a) receiving, by a topic tool, an input of one or more keywords for which to generate a list of related topics; (b) acquiring, by a crawler, content from a plurality of different web content sources via one or more networks; (c) applying, by the topic tool, to the acquired content an ensemble of algorithms, the ensemble comprising a predetermined sequence of: one or more key phrase extraction algorithms to generate a set of keywords based on at least the acquired content, one or more graph analyses algorithms to identify a set of topics semantically relevant to the set of keywords generated using the one or more key phrase extraction algorithms, and one or more natural language processing algorithms to determine a relevance score for each topic of the set of semantically relevant topics; (d) generating, by the topic tool, from the set of semantically relevant topics, a knowledge graph of related topics for the one or more keywords; and (e) outputting, by the topic tool based at least partially on the knowledge graph, an enumerated list of topics ranked by at least the relevance score.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein (a) further comprises receiving, by the topic tool, the input of one or more keywords from a topic inventory tool, the topic inventory tool generating the input keyword from analyses of content from an identified web site.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein (b) further comprises acquiring content, by the crawler, from the plurality of different web content sources comprising web sites, news articles, blog posts and keyword data.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein (b) further comprises cleansing and normalizing the acquired content.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more key phrase extraction algorithms comprise a Bayesian statistical ensemble.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein (c) further comprises performing a plurality of term ranking functions are performed including one or more of the following: a core phrase term ranking function, a tail phrase term ranking function, a hyperdictionary graph traversal algorithm and a semantic knowledgebase path traversal score.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein (c) further comprises applying a weight to each of the one or more algorithms of the ensemble to generate the relevance score for the set of semantic relevance scored phrases.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein (e) further comprises outputting the enumerated list of topics ranked by a measure of frequency comprising one or more of the following: frequency in page body, frequency in title, and number of pages where the topics occur.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein (e) further comprises outputting the enumerated list of topics ranked by at least one of an attractiveness score, a volume score and a competition score.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein (e) further comprises outputting the enumerated list of topics ranked by an estimated equivalent value associated with paid advertising.
11. A system for generating from one or more keywords a list of related topics for organic search, the system comprising: a crawler configured to acquire content from a plurality of different web content sources via one or more networks; and a topic tool configured to execute on a processor to: receive an input of one or more keywords for which to generate a list of related topics; apply to the acquired content an ensemble of algorithms, the ensemble comprising a predetermined sequence of: one or more key phrase extraction algorithms to generate a set of keywords based on at least the acquired content, one or more graph analyses algorithms to identify a set of topics semantically relevant to the set of keywords generated using the one or more key phrase extraction algorithms, and one or more natural language processing algorithms to determine a relevance score for each topic of the set of semantically relevant topics; generate from the set of semantically relevant topics, a knowledge graph of related topics for the input of the one or more keywords; and output based at least partially on the knowledge graph, an enumerated list of topics ranked by at least the relevance score.
12. The system of claim 11, further comprising a topic inventory tool configured to generate the input of one or more keywords from analyses of content from an identified web site.
13. The system of claim 11, wherein the key phrase extraction algorithms comprise a Bayesian statistical ensemble.
14. The system of claim 11, wherein the ensemble is further configured to perform a plurality of term ranking functions including one or more of the following: a core phrase term ranking function, a tail phrase term ranking function, a hyperdictionary graph traversal algorithm and a semantic knowledgebase path traversal score.
15. The system of claim 1, wherein (e) further comprises outputting the enumerated list of topics ranked by one or more of the following: a measure of frequency, an attractiveness score, a volume score and a competition score.
"A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
The application claim 21 does not contain specific limitations as shown in the patent claim 1; however, according to In re Goodman, the application claim 21 is generic to the species of information covered by claim 1 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is anticipated by the species of the patented invention.
The application claim 33 does not contain specific limitations as shown in the patent claim 11; however, according to In re Goodman, the application claim 33 is generic to the species of information covered by claim 11 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is anticipated by the species of the patented invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henkin et al. (US 20110213655 A1) (hereinafter Henkin).
As per claims 21and 33, Henkin discloses one or more processors [one or more processors 262, paragraph 172]; and memory [memory 264, paragraph 177] storing instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving keywords for the website [when the URL request is received at the PUB server 104, server 104 responds by transmitting the URL request info and/or web page content, paragraph 116]; retrieving, based on the received keywords, web content from a plurality of web content sources [as the Hybrid System 108 receives the web page content from the PUB server 104, it analyzes, in real-time, the received web page content (and/or other information) in order to generate page information, paragraph 117]; generating a set of topics semantically relevant to the keywords based on the retrieved web content [A score indicating how related the web page is to each topic in the taxonomy is determined. This is compared to the scores for other web pages that are candidates for being matched or linked. The similarity in scores between two web pages may be used to determine whether those two items should be matched or linked, paragraph 52]; determining a topic authority score for each topic in the set of semantically relevant topics [the score for each topic may be normalized and represented by a number between 0 and 1. The resulting list of scores is a vector representing the relatedness of the web page to the topics in the taxonomy, paragraph 53]; ranking topics in the set of semantically relevant topics based on the respective topic authority score [the relevance score may indicate the degree of relevance between a given ad and the content of the identified page., paragraph 66]; selecting a subset of the keywords based on the ranked topics in the set of semantically relevant topics [the relatedness scores may be used by the Hybrid System to identify and/or select a subset of KeyPhrases for use in subsequent Hybrid contextual/relevancy and markup analysis operations. In at least one embodiment, a respective KeyPhrase relatedness score may be determined for each of the identified KeyPhrases, and subset of KeyPhrases may be selected as KeyPhrase candidates based on relative values of their respective relatedness scores, paragraph 427]; and returning the subset of the keywords as suggestions for improving search engine optimization (SEO) of the website [the relatedness scores may be used by the Hybrid System to identify and/or select a subset of KeyPhrases for use in subsequent Hybrid contextual/relevancy and markup analysis operations. In at least one embodiment, a respective KeyPhrase relatedness score may be determined for each of the identified KeyPhrases, and subset of KeyPhrases may be selected as KeyPhrase candidates based on relative values of their respective relatedness scores, paragraph 427].
As per claim 22, Henkin discloses wherein retrieving the web content comprises crawling the web content from the plurality of web content sources [The server system checks a cache to see if the particular content has already been analyzed. If not, the server system obtains the text for the web page from the client (or, in some embodiments, the server system may crawl the original web page from the publisher's server). The server system scores the overall text content and individual keyphrases on the page against the taxonomy stored on the server system and also identifies candidate items of related content or ads., paragraph 61].
As per claims 23 and 34, Henkin discloses, wherein the topic authority score comprises a topic relevance score indicating a strength of relevance between the keywords and the corresponding topic [automatically and dynamically generating, in real-time or substantially real-time, relevancy/relatedness scores which, for example, may be used to identify or determine degrees of relatedness between different combinations of source pages, target pages, related content elements, keyphrases, advertisements, paragraph 235].
As per claim 24, Henkin discloses, wherein the operations further comprise determining a volume score for each topic in the set of semantically relevant topics, wherein the volume score is determined based on a quantity of the web content having the corresponding topic [automatically and dynamically generating, in real-time or substantially real-time, relevancy/relatedness scores which, for example, may be used to identify or determine degrees of relatedness between different combinations of source pages, target pages, related content elements, keyphrases, advertisements, paragraph 235].
As per claims 25 and 35, Henken discloses, wherein the returning the subset of the keywords comprises presenting the subset of the keywords in a graphical user interface (GUI) at a display of a client computing device associated with the website [Fig. 2C, Display System 139].
As per claims 26 and 36, Henken discloses wherein the received keywords comprise topics a user plans to use in the website, and the operations further comprise generating a set of keywords based on the topics the user plans to use in the website and the retrieved web content [analyze many different pages on a given web site or network of sites, determine the best matching topic for each page, and/or mark relevant keyphrases to thereby link pages of related topics. In this way, a relationship is formed between the topic that the user is currently reading and the page that the related link will lead to, paragraph 1838].
As per claims 27 and 37, Henkin discloses receiving a second website; identifying web content in the second website based on crawling the second website; and generating a content comparison between the web content in the second website and web content in the website [when a page view (source page) is requested by a user, the Hybrid Back End may send crawlers (e.g., asynchronously--via Job Queue) to crawl associated source page website (or portions thereof) and/or related websites and perform related content analysis processing, paragraph 285].
As per claim 28, Henkin discloses wherein the second website comprises a competitor website [Various sports sites and sports news pages may be designated as relating to the topic of sports. When a new sports star emerges, the server system will start counting the relative number of times that name appears on pages associated with sports. A new keyword/keyphrase is added that becomes correlated to the sports topic (even if that name had not appeared much in the past). Pages can then be scored against the sports topic based on the occurrence of that keyphrase and the relative correlation of that keyphrase to the topic of sports. Pages related to sports can then be selected and linked to one another based on this keyphrase (and other words/phrases appearing on the pages). The dynamic taxonomy can be updated based both on pages crawled from the web (including pages designated as relating to particular topics) as well as based on source web pages obtained from client computer systems being analyzed for linking and ad placement, paragraph 63].
As per claims 29 and 38, Henkin discloses wherein generating the content comparison comprises comparing the web content in the second website and the web content in the website that includes at least one topic in the set of semantically relevant topics [These vectors may be compared to determine to what degree two web pages or other items of content are related., paragraph 53].
As per claims 30 and 39, Henkin discloses, wherein the operations further comprise generating recommendations to add keywords associated with the at least one topic to the web content in the website, based on the content comparison, to improve SEO of the website relative to the second website [A new keyword/keyphrase is added that becomes correlated to the sports topic (even if that name had not appeared much in the past). Pages can then be scored against the sports topic based on the occurrence of that keyphrase and the relative correlation of that keyphrase to the topic of sports. Pages related to sports can then be selected and linked to one another based on this keyphrase (and other words/phrases appearing on the pages). The dynamic taxonomy can be updated based both on pages crawled from the web (including pages designated as relating to particular topics) as well as based on source web pages obtained from client computer systems being analyzed for linking and ad placement, paragraph 63].
As per claims 31 and 40, Henkin discloses wherein the operations further comprise determining a competition value for each keyword of the keywords, wherein the competition value indicates a quantity of third parties bidding on the keyword relative to other keywords amongst the keywords [when advertiser subsequently bids on a KeyPhrase such as `Chinese Medicine`, the Hybrid System is able to automatically and dynamically identify and suggest related terms like `Traditional Chinese Medicine` and `Indigo naturalis`, depending on an analysis of the advertiser's needs (which, for example, may be based, at least in part, on crawling and classifying at least a portion of the advertiser's website), paragraph 478].
As per claim 32, Henkin discloses wherein the competition value indicates a relative demand of the keyword amongst the keywords [a ranking value may be generated for each selected ad based on the ad's associated relevance score and associated EVM estimate, paragraph 66].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOOSHA ARJOMANDI whose telephone number is (571)272-9784. The examiner can normally be reached on (571)272-9784.
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 on (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 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.
/NOOSHA ARJOMANDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166