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 .
This communication is in response to Application filed on June 17, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11 and 20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Referring to the objection to claim 9, the objection is maintained since no amendment has been made to overcome the objection states in the claim .
Referring to the objection to claim 9, the objection is maintained since no amendment has been made to overcome the prior noted objection.
Referring to the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claims 1-20, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant points to para 17-18 and the Summary of the specification as providing written description of the claimed limitation of ‘for each candidate keyword, computing a composite score for the keyword based on an estimate of traffic associated with a set of URLs in common between the candidate keyword and the seed keyword’. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the cited portions of para 17-18 describe the similarity functions between a keyword and a topic cluster and between a pair keywords, as being defined based on an intersection of the search results lists for the keywords, these paragraphs do not link the recited ‘estimate of traffic’ associated with the keywords as being included within the similarity calculations. Furthermore, the summary in para 4 as pointed to by Applicant also does not recite this missing feature. As such, the 35 USC 112(a) rejection is maintained.
Referring to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20, Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged. As such, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of the claims is withdrawn.
Referring to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20, as amended, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a particular technological solution and integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, Applicant states that the technological improvement to constructing a topic graph from search engine results page data in which keywords are loosely clustered with each keyword meeting a threshold degree of similarity to its cluster but necessarily to every other keyword in the cluster is that these techniques provide increased accuracy when discovering and modeling different topics through representing keywords using SERPs and allowing topics to contain loosely associated keywords so as to better model the scope of the topics and that the resulting topic organization makes a content authors content more likely to be highly ranked by a search engine. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits that the identification of keywords less than a threshold distance from a seed keyword in a URL graph constructed from SERP items is a mental step. A user can mentally organize a set of data into clusters based on a desired threshold distance by viewing the data in a URL graph. The URL graph is merely a source of the data that the user can mentally examine. Furthermore, the generation of the topic graph steps also involve mental steps and mathematical calculations in the computation of the composite score, similarity measure and metric. These are judicial exceptions that do not integrate into a practical application, in part because they do not recite any steps that would show an increased accuracy when discovering and modeling different topics through representing keywords using SERPs or to better model the scope of the topics and that the resulting topic organization that would make content authors content more likely to be highly ranked by a search engine, other than merely performing the mental and mathematical steps involved in generating the topic graph and filtering the keywords by the composite score calculation and displaying the result to a content author. As such, Examiner maintains that the claims, as amended, do not recite a practical application or teach significantly more than the judicial exception. The 35 USC 101 rejection of the pending claims is hereby maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20, as amended, have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim incorrectly depends from claim 1 because it further limits the computing of a topic ROI which is absent from claim 1 and should depend instead from claim 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The instant specification lacks a description of the limitation ‘for each candidate keyword, computing a composite score for the keyword based on an estimate of traffic associated with a set of URLs in common between the candidate keyword and the seed keyword’, in claims 1, 11 and 20. While the instant specification describes a degree of intersection of the search results of keywords—that is, the number or percentage of links that are in both result lists [para 17, 18] and ROI estimates generated from traffic [Abstract], it does not link an estimate of traffic to the degree of intersection of URLS common to both pairs of keywords in the similarity calculations. As such, the specification does not describe ‘for each candidate keyword, computing a composite score for the keyword based on an estimate of traffic associated with a set of URLs in common between the candidate keyword and the seed keyword’, as claimed. For purposes of examination, Examiner will assume that the estimate of traffic is a separate calculation from the set of URLs in common between the candidate and seed keywords.
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are also rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
Due to the 35 USC 112 rejections, the claims have been examined as best understood 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 recite:
obtaining a set of a search engine results page (SERP) items for a website comprising information about a topic of interest, the obtained SERP items comprising, each viewer query, a set of keywords for the query and a list of links returned by the search engine for the query;
generating the topic graph by organizing the set of keywords into topic clusters, the organizing comprising:
receiving a seed keyword supplied in a topic-search criteria for the topic of interest;
identifying keywords less than a threshold distance from the seed keyword in a URL graph constructed from the obtained SERP items as candidate keywords;
for each candidate keyword, computing a composite score for the keyword based on an estimate of traffic associated with a set of URLs in common between the candidate keyword and the seed keyword, a similarity measure between the candidate keyword and the seed keyword, and a metric derived from metadata for the candidate keyword;
selecting the candidate keyword having a highest composite score as a new seed keyword; and
organizing the set of keywords into topic clusters based on the new seed keyword; and
providing the topic graph for display to a content author of the website.
Step 1: The claims as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: At least claims 1, 11 and 20 recite limitations that are abstract ideas. The limitations “generating the topic graph by organizing the set of keywords into topic clusters, the organizing comprising: identifying keywords less than a threshold distance from the seed keyword in a URL graph constructed from the obtained SERP items as candidate keywords” are mental steps. A user can mentally organize a set of data into clusters based on a desired threshold distance by viewing a URL graph. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
The limitations “for each candidate keyword, computing a similarity measure between the candidate keyword and the seed keyword, and a metric derived from metadata for the candidate keyword” are mental steps. A user can mentally determine a similarity parameter to be used based on considering data items. Furthermore, a user can determine a metric to be used based on metadata associated with a data item. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “computing a composite score for the keyword based on an estimate of traffic associated with a set of URLs in common between the candidate keyword and the seed keyword” is a mathematical calculation and as such falls under the mathematical grouping of abstract ideas.
The limitation “selecting the candidate keyword having a highest composite score as a new seed keyword” and “organizing the set of keywords into topic clusters based on the new seed keyword” are mental steps. A user can mentally select a keyword data item based on a highest score as most favorable to be used and mentally organize the keywords into clusters based on a similarity to the newly selected keyword. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
Claims 1, 11 and 20 recite the limitations “obtaining a set of a search engine results page (SERP) items for a website comprising information about a topic of interest, the obtained SERP items comprising, each viewer query, a set of keywords for the query and a list of links returned by the search engine for the query” and “receiving a seed keyword supplied in a topic-search criteria for the topic of interest”. These limitations are additional elements and are insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and do not provide integration into a practical application.
Claims 1 , 11 and 20 also recite “providing the topic graph for display to a content author of the website”. This limitation is also an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting and outputting information for display, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016, and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Furthermore, Claims 1, 11 and 20 recite the following additional elements “one or more processors”, “computer readable storage medium storing instructions” and “a system”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "obtaining”, “receiving” and “providing” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. 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); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 12-14, 16 and 18 depend from claims 1 and 11 and thus include all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, therefore claims 2-4, 6, 8, 12-14, 16 and 18 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes" and “mathematical concepts”.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 12-14, 16 and 18 furthermore recite:
(claims 2, 12) accessing an initial rank of the website on the search engine results page (SERP) when a plurality of queries about a topic of interest are entered into a search engine by a plurality of viewers, the website created by a content author and comprising content about the topic of interest; and
responsive to the content author publishing modified content to the website based on the provided topic graph, accessing a modified rank of the website on the SERP when queries about the topic of interest are entered into the search engine, the modified rank higher than the initial rank;
(claims 3, 13): expanding a topic from the new seed keyword by adding each additional keyword whose similarity to that new seed keyword exceeds a similarity threshold;
(claims 4, 14) filtering one or more topics from the topic graph based on the topic search criteria, the filtered topics having keywords greater than a threshold distance from the new seed keyword in the URL graph based on the topic search criteria;
(claims 6, 16) computing betweenness centrality values for nodes of the topic graph; modifying the topic graph by removing nodes having betweenness centrality values greater than a given threshold; and computing the topics based on the modified topic graph; and
(claims 8, 18): ranking topic clusters of the topic graph according to topic ROI; and displaying the ranked topic clusters to a content author according to the ranking.
Step 1: Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 12-14, 16 and 18 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 12-14, 16 and 18 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitations “accessing an initial rank of the website on the search engine results page (SERP) when a plurality of queries about a topic of interest are entered into a search engine by a plurality of viewers, the website created by a content author and comprising content about the topic of interest” and “responsive to the content author publishing modified content to the website based on the provided topic graph, accessing a modified rank of the website on the SERP when queries about the topic of interest are entered into the search engine, the modified rank higher than the initial rank” are mental steps. A user can perform these steps mentally by viewing the initial rank of the website and a modified rank of the website presented to the user. Thus the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “expanding a topic from the new seed keyword by adding each additional keyword whose similarity to that new seed keyword exceeds a similarity threshold” are mental steps. A user can choose to widen the scope of a topic to consider based on keywords that are more similar to a selected keyword based on a chosen threshold parameter. Thus the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “filtering one or more topics from the topic graph based on the topic search criteria, the filtered topics having keywords greater than a threshold distance from the new seed keyword in the URL graph based on the topic search criteria” are mental steps. A user can choose to consider or ignore certain keywords from the graph based on whether the keywords exceed a selected threshold distance parameter. Thus the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
The limitations “computing betweenness centrality values for nodes of the topic graph; modifying the topic graph by removing nodes having betweenness centrality values greater than a given threshold; and computing the topics based on the modified topic graph” are mental steps. A user can perform these steps mentally by determining between centrality values for nodes within the topic graph, modify the graph mentally or using pen and paper, and can determine the topics based on the modified graph. Thus the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “ranking topic clusters of the topic graph according to topic ROI” are mental steps. A user can perform these steps mentally by ordering the topics within the cluster groups according to a chosen parameter. Thus the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
Claim 8 recites the limitation “displaying the ranked topic clusters to a content author according to the ranking”. This limitation is an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting and outputting information for display, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016, and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
With respect to the "displaying” limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above, when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. 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); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 2-4, 6, 8, 12-14, 16 and 18 as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 5 and 15 depend from claims 1 and 11 and thus include all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, therefore claims 5 and 15 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes" and “mathematical concepts”.
Claims 5 and 15 furthermore recite “wherein the topic search criteria include at least one of: URL link patterns, seed keywords, page types, search intent, or keyword categories”.
Step 1: Claims 5 and 15 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 5 and 15 recite limitations that are abstract ideas because they depend from claims 1 and 11.
Step 2A prong 2:
The limitation “wherein the topic search criteria include at least one of: URL link patterns, seed keywords, page types, search intent, or keyword categories” is insignificant extra-solution activity because it further defines the ‘receiving a seed keyword’ step in claims 1 and 11. As such, this limitation does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
As applied in claims 1 and 11, with respect to the "receiving” limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above, when re-evaluated these elements are also well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. 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); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remain insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 5 and 15 as a whole are ineligible.
Claims 7, 9, 10, 17 and 19 depend from claims 1 and 11 and thus include all the limitations of claims 1 and 11, therefore claims 7, 9, 10, 17 and 19 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes" and “mathematical concepts”.
Claims 7, 9, 10, 17 and 19 furthermore recite:
(claims 7, 17): computing topic returns on investment (ROI) for the topic clusters;
(claim 9) wherein computing a topic ROI for a topic cluster comprises computing a click-through rate (CTR);
(claims 10, 19) wherein computing the score comprises performing a similarity function that computes keyword similarities using embeddings of SERP items for keywords.
Step 1: Claims 7, 9, 10, 17 and 19 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 7, 9, 10, 17 and 19 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitations “computing topic returns on investment (ROI) for the topic clusters”, “wherein computing a topic ROI for a topic cluster comprises computing a click-through rate (CTR)” and “wherein computing the score comprises performing a similarity function that computes keyword similarities using embeddings of SERP items for keywords” are mathematical calculations.
Step 2A prong 2: Claims 7, 9, 10, 17 and 19 do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 7, 9, 10, 17 and 19 do not recite any additional elements that would provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 7, 9, 10, 17 and 19 as a whole are ineligible.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory} above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to place them within the four statutory categories 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 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 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0113933 by Lewis et al (hereafter Lewis), in view of US Patent 9,798,820 issued to Premont-Schwarz et al (hereafter Premont) as disclosed by Applicant in IDS filed on 11/25/2025, in view of US 2008/0313202 by Kamen, and further in view of US 2007/0250500 by Ismalon.
Referring to claim 1, Lewis discloses a method for generating a topic graph for creating content [method for accurately and efficiently discovering keywords using a seed keyword by measuring the semantic relevance of keywords across multiple information resources in a computer network environment, para 32; identification of candidate keywords using clustering, para 21], the method comprising:
obtaining a set of a search engine results page (SERP) items for a website comprising information about a topic of interest, the obtained SERP items comprising, each viewer query and a set of keywords for the query [content items are provided for display from content provider 115 or content publisher 120 computing devices and include webpage content items, search engine (query) results, para 42-43; requests made to search engine includes search queries, para 33, 44; query topic of interest e.g. ‘spatula’ 410A, para 83, Fig 5];
generating the topic graph by organizing the set of keywords into topic clusters [clustering algorithm applied to keywords in semantic relationship graph 200, para 95; Fig 2], the organizing comprising:
receiving a seed keyword supplied in a topic-search criteria for the topic of interest [wherein server receives seed keyword from content provider 115/content publisher 120 computing device, para 33, 50, 87, 120, Fig 6, element 605; Fig 7, element 702; seed keyword topic of interest ‘spatula’ 410A, para 83, Fig 5];
identifying keywords less than a threshold distance from the seed keyword based on URLs associated with the obtained SERP items as candidate keywords [wherein a plurality of resource identifiers associated with a domain entity (whose entity/resource identifier is received along with the seed keyword) are identified as belonging to the same domain entity based on the host name of the resource identifier (URL), para 98, Fig 6, elements 610-615; resource identifiers; a semantic relationship graph is used to determine the semantic distance between candidate (seed keyword) nodes of the graph and any one of the keywords on the one or more information resources being below a semantic distance threshold as being related, para 102; wherein the resource identifiers (URLs) associated with the domain entity (that pertain to the keywords in the semantic relationship graph) are crawled via network entity indexer available via network 105, para 60-61];
for each candidate keyword, computing a composite score for the keyword associated with a set of URLs in common between the candidate keyword and the seed keyword [keyword-seed affinity score based on frequency of keyword occurring with seed keyword on an information resource of domain entity, para 100, Fig 6, element 615; common host name of resource identifier (URL) on domain entity, para 98], a similarity measure between the candidate keyword and the seed keyword [lexical and semantic matching, para 63-64], and a metric derived from metadata for the candidate keyword [properties of the keyword from the information resource are identified including location on the information resource, font type, font size, color, etc. para 61];
selecting the candidate keyword having a highest composite score [candidate keywords from highest category-seed affinity score selected as relevant to the seed keyword and domain entity, para 79,116]; and
organizing the set of keywords into topic clusters [candidate nodes and corresponding keywords are clustered by keyword category using a clustering algorithm, para 95; see keyword categories 230A,230B, Fig 2]; and
providing the topic graph for display to a content author of the website [keywords indicated as selected transmitted to content provider for display, para 119, Fig 6, element 640].
Referring to claim 1, Lewis discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses obtaining webpage content items pertaining to search engine query results [para 42-43], identifying keywords less than a threshold distance from the seed keyword based on URLs crawled from network 105 that are associated with the obtained SERP items as candidate keywords [para 60-61], and determining the keyword-seed affinity score based on a frequency of keyword occurring with seed keyword on an information resource of domain entity with a common host name (URL) [para 98,100, Fig 6, element 615].
However, it remains silent as to the content items including a list of links returned by the search engine for the query; that the URLs pertaining to the identified SERP keywords crawled from the network 105 are stored within a URL graph that is constructed, and that the score for each candidate keyword is computed based on an estimate of traffic, and selection of a candidate keyword as a new seed keyword and organization of the keywords into topic clusters based on the new seed keyword.
Premont teaches that search engine results pages (SERPs) that are one or more pages generated by a search engine in response to a query received from a user and displayed as results including sponsored results such as advertisements with links [col. 8, line 50- col., 9, line 3] and determining traffic performance metrics of a network-specific resource [col. 9, lines 50-59] such as traffic volume, speed etc. [col. 10, lines 1-22].
Lewis and Premont are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- clustering of keywords. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the search engine results content items of Lewis to include the list of sponsored linked advertisements as in Premont and to modify the keyword-seed affinity score based on a keyword frequency within an information resource of domain entity with a common host name (URL) of Lewis to include the traffic performance metrics of Premont because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make these modifications because the list of sponsored advertisements in Premont further refines the format of the search engine results in Lewis. Furthermore, the traffic performance metrics determined in Premont refines the keyword-affinity scoring conducted in Lewis.
Still referring to claim 1, while Lewis/Premont discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses receiving an input seed keyword from content provider/publisher which is used to perform clustering of the keyword and its related keywords into categories [Lewis, para 95; keyword categories 230A,230B, Fig 2; Fig 6, element 605; Fig 7, element 702], and identifying keywords less than a threshold distance from the seed keyword based on URLs crawled from network 105 that are associated with the obtained SERP items as candidate keywords [Lewis, para 60-61], it remains silent as to selecting a candidate keyword as a new seed keyword and using the new seed keyword to performing clustering; and that the URLs pertaining to the identified SERP keywords crawled from the network 105 are stored within a URL graph that is constructed.
Kamen teaches modifying an original seed keyword by replacing it with another seed keyword/s which are then used to create an aggregated set of semantic keyword clusters (SKC) [para 8, 12-14].
Lewis, Premont and Kamen are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- clustering of keywords. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seed keyword received in Lewis with the modified seed keyword/s in Kamen because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the modified seed keywords of Kamen further refine the clustering of keyword topics in Lewis to account for modifications to its user inputs.
Still referring to claim 1, while Lewis/Premont/Kamen discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses identifying keywords less than a threshold distance from the seed keyword based on URLs associated with the obtained SERP items as candidate keywords [Lewis, para 60-61], it remains silent as to the URLs pertaining to the identified SERP keywords crawled from the network 105 are stored within a URL graph that is constructed.
Ismalon teaches that each URL pertaining to input search phrases has its own associated graph (URLAG) that is created from keywords of the URL [Ismalon, para 51], which is then used to create a URLQM to check relevance of keywords in a submitted query [para 52, Fig 15].
Lewis, Premont, Kamen and Ismalon are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- clustering of data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the URLs crawled from network 105 in Lewis to include the storing of the URLs within the created URLAG association graph of Ismalon because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the URLAG associated graph that stores URLs pertaining to query keywords in Ismalon further defines the source from which the URLs of Lewis are crawled from.
Referring to claim 11, the limitations of the claim are similar to those of claim 1 in the form of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executed by one or more processors [Lewis, memory 825 storing computer instructions executed by processor(s) 820, para 127, Fig 8]. As such, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Referring to claim 20, the limitations of the claim are similar to those of claim 1in the form of a system [Lewis, computer system 800,Fig 8] comprising one or more processors [Lewis, processor(s) 820, Fig 8]; and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executed by one or more processors [Lewis, memory 825 storing computer instructions, para 127]. As such, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Referring to claims 2 and 12, Lewis/Premont/Kamen/Ismalon discloses: accessing an initial rank of the website on the search engine results page (SERP) when a plurality of queries about a topic of interest are entered into a search engine by a plurality of viewers, the website created by a content author and comprising content about the topic of interest; and responsive to the content author publishing modified content to the website based on the provided topic graph, accessing a modified rank of the website on the SERP when queries about the topic of interest are entered into the search engine, the modified rank higher than the initial rank [Premont, wherein search engine optimization is performed to improve the position of a page or site in ranked results including direct on-page optimization amending the page or site, col. 9, lines 32-37; performance potential to increase a network specific resource and its ability to increase its utility and usefulness and to climb in rankings, col. 9, lines 60-63].
Referring to claims 3 and 13, Lewis/Premont/Kamen/Ismalon discloses expanding a topic from the new seed keyword by adding each additional keyword whose similarity to that new seed keyword exceeds a similarity threshold [Kamen, modification of original seed keyword, para 14; Lewis, affinity score threshold, para 79, 87, Fig 6, element 635].
Referring to claims 4 and 14, Lewis/Premont/Kamen/Ismalon discloses: filtering one or more topics from the topic graph based on the topic search criteria, the filtered topics having keywords greater than a threshold distance from the new seed keyword in the URL graph based on the topic search criteria [Lewis, keyword seed affinity score greater than threshold selected as relevant, para 74; Kamen, new seed keyword/s, para 14].
Referring to claims 5 and 15, Lewis/Premont/Kamen/Ismalon discloses that the topic search criteria include at least one of: URL link patterns, seed keywords, page types, search intent, or keyword categories [Lewis, seed keywords received, para 88; resource identifier (URL) belonging to same domain entity host name received with the seed keyword, para 98; company webpage content item type, para 42; seed keyword with ‘spatula’ search intent, Fig 5, element 410A].
Referring to claims 7 and 17, Lewis/Premont/Kamen/Ismalon discloses computing topic returns on investment (ROI) for the topic clusters [Premont, performance metric calculated includes cost per click of keywords, col 8, line 65 - col. 9, line 3; col. 9, lines 50-54].
Referring to claims 8 and 18, Lewis/Premont/Kamen/Ismalon discloses ranking topic clusters of the topic graph according to topic ROI; and displaying the ranked topic clusters to a content author according to the ranking [Lewis, display of selected and unselected items based on category-seed affinity scoring, Fig 6, element 640, Fig 5; Premont, performance metric calculated includes cost per click of keywords, col 8, line 65 - col. 9, line 3; col. 9, lines 50-54].
Referring to claim 9, Lewis/Premont/Kamen/Ismalon discloses that computing a topic ROI for a topic cluster comprises computing a click-through rate (CTR) [Premont, performance metric calculated includes cost per click of keywords, col 8, line 65 - col. 9, line 3; col. 9, lines 50-54].
Referring to claims 10 and 19, Lewis/Premont/Kamen/Ismalon discloses that computing the score comprises performing a similarity function that computes keyword similarities using embeddings of SERP items for keywords [Lewis, lexical and semantic matching, para 63-64; Premont, candidate categories identified as similar using word embeddings such as Word2Vec model, col. 15, lines 18-44].
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis, in view of Premont, in view of Kamen, in view of Ismalon, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 2016/0224686 by Ramanathan, as disclosed by Applicant in IDS filed on 11/25/2025.
Referring to claims 6 and 16, while Lewis/Premont/Kamen/Ismalon discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses indicating that a second keyword category as unselected (i.e. removed from consideration from the keyword category graph) responsive to determining that the first category-seed affinity score is greater than the second category-seed affinity score [Lewis, para 3], it remains silent as to computing betweenness centrality values for nodes of the topic graph.
Ramanathan teaches generating betweenness centrality scores for each node of a data graph [para 29, 32, 33].
Lewis/Premont/Kamen/Ismalon and Ramanathan are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- analysis of received data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the category-seed affinity score measure in Lewis with the betweenness centrality scores in Ramanathan because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the betweenness centrality scores of Ramanathan refine the keyword scoring functions in Lewis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hauser (US 2010/0287152) directed to: selecting URLs for pages to be downloaded in a web crawler [Abstract] and calculating preferred behavior pertaining to ranked URLs comprising breadth-first traversal of the web site, backlink count, partial page-rank calculations, page-rank calculations using a link graph with URLs only if those URLs have sufficient human interaction, etc. [para 31];
Scofield et al (US 7,660,815) directed to: calculation of a ratio of traversals of a first navigation path and traversals of all navigation paths to the second online content source [Abstract]; and presenting SERP URLs as navigable links pertaining to a particular keyword query [col. 61, lines 27-64; Fig 1-3].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERYL M SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4018. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 10am-6:30pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. 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.
CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/C.M.S/
/AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights