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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 and 18-22 are pending.
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, 3, 21 and 22 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.
Claim 1:
“parsing text of the messages to identify URL patterns corresponding to the hyperlinks” Patentable weight is not given to above claim language.
Claim 3:
The specification does not support “connected message that is separate from and is a reply to a first message.” Patentable weight is not given to above claim language. Furthermore, it is unclear how a message can simultaneously be “connected” while being “separate from”
Claim 21:
determining that a first hyperlink of the one or more hyperlinks specifies a communication session; determining that the communication session has already occurred and determining a reduced valued value for the relevance score based on the communication session having already occurred.
Patentable weight is not given to above claim language.
Claim 22
determining based on permission information associated with the user, an availability value indicating whether a first location specified by a first hyperlink of the one or more hyperlinks is accessible to the user, and determining, as at least part of the relevance score for the plurality of references, a user-specified output relevance score for a first resource of the plurality of resources comprising the first link based on (i) a first relevance prediction of the one or more relevance predictions corresponding to the first hyperlink and (iii) the availability value.
Patentable weight is not given to above claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascall in view of Singh (US 9,189,557) in view of Bolls (US 2009/0192985).
Hereafter, above references are combination A.
one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
Pascal claim 1
in response to obtaining a search query requesting resources, identifying a plurality of resources relating to the search query, wherein the plurality of resources comprises messages; extracting, from the messages, hyperlinks specifying target locations by parsing text of the messages to identify URL patterns corresponding to the hyperlinks;
Pascal [0029] Continuing with the example above, as the user enters Pgh St", the system
102 can infer that the message was going to be directed to the "Pittsburgh Steelers" thereby
automatically prompting content search. In addition to multi-media content, the innovation is
also capable of locating and suggesting web-links or hyperlinks to websites relevant to the
message. As multi-media content can be incorporated into a message, the links too can be
attached to the message thereby increasing the comprehensiveness of the messaging experience.
generating, via a machine learning model that is trained to predict relevance based on training hyperlinks used as learning model inputs,
Pascal discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose above limitation. However, Singh discloses:
Singh col 7 line 58 – col 8 line 10 These weights are suitably generated by optimization respective to an annotated training set of hyperlinks labeled as to whether or not they link to web pages in the target language.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Pascal to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Singh for the purpose of training by means of hyperlinks.
relevance predictions for the hyperlinks to the search query based on the search query, the hyperlinks, and resource types of the target locations, and
Bolls [0022] FIG. 1 illustrates a one-click graphical user interface (GFI) system and process for combining search argument modification and initiation of new searching in one evolution or action. At 101 a search engine searches at least one database (illustratively including local computer device storage media, external storage media accessible through network communications, and the internet) and retrieves a plurality of results from an initial search term entered by a user. The search results are formatted and presented to the user at 103. In one aspect the results may be presented in a conventional browser window format familiar to the user, such as a list of results ranked in order of likely relevance, each list item comprising one or more of a text hyperlink linking to a storage device file location or an internet web page comprising the result item; a text selection from or abstract of the item, providing descriptive information of the item; an item identifier such as an article title or filename with storage device location information; and/or a server or desktop path or internet web address of the item; however, it will be understood that other results presentation formats may also be practiced.
Examiner Note: interpreted per specification [0005]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Pascal to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Bolls for the purpose of combining search argument modification and initiation of new searching in one evolution or action.
wherein a first hyperlink specifying a first target location having a first resource type has a lower relevance than a second hyperlink specifying a second target location having a second resource type; and
Bolls [0022] FIG. 1 illustrates a one-click graphical user interface (GFI) system and process for combining search argument modification and initiation of new searching in one evolution or action. At 101 a search engine searches at least one database (illustratively including local computer device storage media, external storage media accessible through network communications, and the internet) and retrieves a plurality of results from an initial search term entered by a user. The search results are formatted and presented to the user at 103. In one aspect the results may be presented in a conventional browser window format familiar to the user, such as a list of results ranked in order of likely relevance, each list item comprising one or more of a text hyperlink linking to a storage device file location or an internet web page comprising the result item; a text selection from or abstract of the item, providing descriptive information of the item; an item identifier such as an article title or filename with storage device location information; and/or a server or desktop path or internet web address of the item; however, it will be understood that other results presentation formats may also be practiced.
determining a set of relevance scores for the plurality of resources in relation to
the search query based on the relevance predictions.
Bolls [0022] FIG. 1 illustrates a one-click graphical user interface (GFI) system and process for combining search argument modification and initiation of new searching in one evolution or action. At 101 a search engine searches at least one database (illustratively including local computer device storage media, external storage media accessible through network communications, and the internet) and retrieves a plurality of results from an initial search term entered by a user. The search results are formatted and presented to the user at 103. In one aspect the results may be presented in a conventional browser window format familiar to the user, such as a list of results ranked in order of likely relevance, each list item comprising one or more of a text hyperlink linking to a storage device file location or an internet web page comprising the result item; a text selection from or abstract of the item, providing descriptive information of the item; an item identifier such as an article title or filename with storage device location information; and/or a server or desktop path or internet web address of the item; however, it will be understood that other results presentation formats may also be practiced.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view of Li.
obtaining, from a user, a search query requesting resources;
in response to obtaining the search query requesting resources, identifying a plurality of
resources relating to the search query;
extracting, from the plurality of resources, one or more hyperlinks specifying one or more
locations;
Pascal [0029] Continuing with the example above, as the user enters
Pgh St", the system
102 can infer that the message was going to be directed to the "Pittsburgh Steelers" thereby
automatically prompting content search. In addition to multi-media content, the innovation is
also capable of locating and suggesting web-links or hyperlinks to websites relevant to the
message. As multi-media content can be incorporated into a message, the links too can be
attached to the message thereby increasing the comprehensiveness of the messaging experience.
generating, via a machine learning model that is trained to predict hyperlink relevance,
one or more relevance predictions for the one or more hyperlinks to the search query based on
the search query, and a set of resource types of target locations, wherein the set of resource types is specified by the one or more hyperlinks; and
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose above limitation. However, Li discloses:
Li abstract Technologies pertaining to ranking webpages in response to receipt of a query are
described. A search engine receives a query and identifies webpages that are germane to
the query. The search engine ranks the identified webpages to form a ranked list, wherein a first
webpage is positioned in the ranked list based upon a static score assigned to the first webpage.
The static score is based upon a weight assigned to a hyperlink in a second webpage, wherein the
hyperlink points to the first webpage, and further wherein the weight is based upon a value of a
feature of the hyperlink, such as a location of the hyperlink on the second webpage when the
second webpage is rendered. Further, the second webpage includes several hyperlinks that point
to different webpages, wherein each of the several hyperlinks has a different weight assigned
thereto.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Li for the purpose of ranking webpages in response to receipt of a query, see abstract.
Pascal [0060] The inference engine component 510 can employ machine learning and reasoning
which facilitates automating one or more features in accordance with the subject innovation. The
subject innovation (e.g., in connection with content selection or message completion) can
employ various MLR-based schemes for carrying out various aspects thereof. For example, a
process for determining how to predict or auto-complete a message, what content to search for,
how to construct a query, what content to automatically incorporate into a message, etc. can be
facilitated via an automatic classifier system and process.
determining a relevance score for the plurality of resources in relation to the search query
based on the one or more relevance predictions.
Li abstract Technologies pertaining to ranking webpages in response to receipt of a query are
described. A search engine receives a query and identifies webpages that are germane to
the query. The search engine ranks the identified webpages to form a ranked list, wherein a first
webpage is positioned in the ranked list based upon a static score assigned to the first webpage.
The static score is based upon a weight assigned to a hyperlink in a second webpage, wherein the
hyperlink points to the first webpage, and further wherein the weight is based upon a value of a
feature of the hyperlink, such as a location of the hyperlink on the second webpage when the
second webpage is rendered. Further, the second webpage includes several hyperlinks that point
to different webpages, wherein each of the several hyperlinks has a different weight assigned
thereto.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view
of Jakobsson (US 2020/0067976).
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose
wherein determining the relevance score further comprises:
identifying a connected message that is separate from and is a reply to a first message of the plurality of resources, wherein the first message comprises a first hyperlink;
determining that text of the connected message comprises a target keyword; and
increasing a first relevance score corresponding with the first hyperlink based on the
determining that the connected message comprises the target keyword.
However, Jacobsson discloses:
Jacobsson [0067] Suppose that if a communication contains the term "ACME Bank" and
any hyperlinks, then a risk score is increased by 75 points. Further, if the text associated with the
hyperlink contains at least one of the terms "log," "login," "log-in," "access account," or "my
account," then the score is increased by an additional 20 points. If the message contains an image
or hyperlink to an image matching the logo of "ACME Bank," (e.g., using image matching
techniques described above) then the score is increased by another 50 points. Similarly, if a
communication contains the term "your bank," and at least one of the terms "emergency,"
"immediately," or "within 24 hours," then the score is increased by 25 points. In this scenario,
messages start out being assessed a neutral score, such as zero. Depending on the score
associated with the scanning of the content of a message, different actions are taken by
platform 200, such as allowing the message to be provided to the recipient, quarantining the
message, alerting an administrator, etc. Further, as explained above, the rules, associated scores,
and threshold values can be adjusted (e.g., by an administrator of platform 200), whether on
behalf of all users, or individual users, as applicable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings
of Jakobsson for the purpose of detecting phishing attempts, see title.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view
of Siemiatkowski (US 2022/0253864).
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose
wherein determining the relevance score further comprises: identifying a connected message to a
first message of the plurality of resources, wherein the first message comprises a first hyperlink;
determining that the connected message indicates at least one of gratitude, resolution, or
conclusion; and increasing a first relevance score corresponding with the first hyperlink based on
the determining that the connected message indicates at least one of gratitude, resolution, or
conclusion. However, Siemiatkowski discloses:
Siemiatkowski [0061] The metadata tag 622 may indicate that the second message 620 is
provided on behalf of the entity of the transfer in response to the metadata tag 622 included in
the first message 606. The second message 620 may be similar to the second
message 120 of FIG. 1, and may be a reply/comment to the first message 606 from a provider service similar to the provider service 112. As seen in the illustrative example of FIG. 6, the
second message 620 expresses gratitude from an entity, similar to the entity 116, for the user
having completed the transfer. In the illustrative example, the second message 620 also urges
other users of the interactive multiuser computer service to participate in their own transfers and
includes a hyperlink for doing SO. In this manner, the second message 620 simultaneously
authenticates the contribution claimed by the user in the first message 606, increases the repute
of the user, and furthers the worthy cause.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings
of Siemiatkowski for the purpose of triggering computer system processes through messaging
systems.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view
of Grewall (US 12,143,527)
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose
detecting one or more emojis in the plurality of resources, wherein determining the relevance
score further comprises determining the relevance score based on a sentiment associated with the
one or more emojis. However, Grewall discloses:
Grewall (US 12,143,527) col 17 lines 33-50, In another example, calendar interface 500 visually
displays an overall sentiment for each day based on a sentiment score determined based on the
messaging data collected and analyzed. The visual sentiment displays may include emojis or
other images that convey a particular emotion, and/or color coded text, numbers, or fills that
indicate an emotional sentiment. For example, calendar interface 500 may display a smiley
face emoji for each day in which a sentiment score is above a certain threshold (e.g., indicates an
overall positive sentiment for the day) and a frowny face emoji for each day in which
a sentiment score is below a certain threshold (e.g., indicates an overall negative sentiment for
the day). In alternative embodiments, sentiment scores may be calculated and displayed for
multiple projects within a particular day, such that each calendar day may include multiple
sentiment visualizations, each sentiment visualization associated with a different project.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings
of Grewall for the purpose of displaying on a calendar interface a smiley face emoji for each day
in which a sentiment score is above a certain threshold (e.g., indicates an overall positive
sentiment for the day).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in view
of Lindmark (US 2025/0007975).
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted a first hyperlink specifying
a first type of location has a lower relevance than a second hyperlink specifying a second type of
location.
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose
the first type of location comprises a video conference platform and the second type of
location comprises a document viewing platform. However, Lindmark discloses:
Lindmark [0076 The collaborative document platform may allow users to synchronously edit
(e.g., via a client device) and collaborate on an electronic document. In some instances,
the video conference platform and the collaborative document platform may be integrated as a
productively tool and share the same set of users and user 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 combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings
of Lindmark for the purpose of providing a computer-implemented method that includes
providing video streams for presentation in a user interface (UI) of a video conference based on a
user priority list, see [0004]
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A
Combination A discloses wherein the one or more hyperlinks comprise (i) a first hyperlink specifying a first target location having a first resource type and (ii) a second hyperlink specifying a second target location having a second resource type, and wherein the first hyperlink has a lower relevance than the second hyperlink based on the first resource type and the second resource type.
Bolls [0022] FIG. 1 illustrates a one-click graphical user interface (GFI) system and process for combining search argument modification and initiation of new searching in one evolution or action. At 101 a search engine searches at least one database (illustratively including local computer device storage media, external storage media accessible through network communications, and the internet) and retrieves a plurality of results from an initial search term entered by a user. The search results are formatted and presented to the user at 103. In one aspect the results may be presented in a conventional browser window format familiar to the user, such as a list of results ranked in order of likely relevance, each list item comprising one or more of a text hyperlink linking to a storage device file location or an internet web page comprising the result item; a text selection from or abstract of the item, providing descriptive information of the item; an item identifier such as an article title or filename with storage device location information; and/or a server or desktop path or internet web address of the item; however, it will be understood that other results presentation formats may also be practiced.
Examiner Note: interpreted per specification [0005]
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A
Combination A discloses wherein determining the relevance score further comprises:
determining a plurality of subjectivity scores for the plurality of resources, wherein a first
type of resource has a lower subjectivity than a second type of resource; and determining the
relevance score based on the one or more relevance predictions and the plurality of subjectivity
scores.
Li abstract Technologies pertaining to ranking webpages in response to receipt of a query are
described. A search engine receives a query and identifies webpages that are germane to
the query. The search engine ranks the identified webpages to form a ranked list, wherein a first
webpage is positioned in the ranked list based upon a static score assigned to the first webpage.
The static score is based upon a weight assigned to a hyperlink in a second webpage, wherein the
hyperlink points to the first webpage, and further wherein the weight is based upon a value of a
feature of the hyperlink, such as a location of the hyperlink on the second webpage when the
second webpage is rendered. Further, the second webpage includes several hyperlinks that point
to different webpages, wherein each of the several hyperlinks has a different weight assigned
thereto.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A
Combination A discloses wherein determining the relevance score further comprises:
classifying the search query into a first category of a plurality of categories;
classifying the plurality of resources into one or more categories of the plurality of
categories;
determining a plurality of relatedness scores for the plurality of resources, wherein a first
resource belonging to the first category has a higher relatedness score than a second resource
belonging to a different category of the plurality of categories; and
determining the relevance score based on the one or more relevance predictions and the
plurality of relatedness scores.
Li abstract Technologies pertaining to ranking webpages in response to receipt of a query are
described. A search engine receives a query and identifies webpages that are germane to
the query. The search engine ranks the identified webpages to form a ranked list, wherein a first
webpage is positioned in the ranked list based upon a static score assigned to the first webpage.
The static score is based upon a weight assigned to a hyperlink in a second webpage, wherein the
hyperlink points to the first webpage, and further wherein the weight is based upon a value of a
feature of the hyperlink, such as a location of the hyperlink on the second webpage when the
second webpage is rendered. Further, the second webpage includes several hyperlinks that point
to different webpages, wherein each of the several hyperlinks has a different weight assigned
thereto.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A
Combination A discloses determining that the relevance score satisfies a relevance threshold; and
based on determining that the relevance score satisfies the relevance threshold, outputting
the plurality of resources to the user.
Li abstract Technologies pertaining to ranking webpages in response to receipt of a query are
described. A search engine receives a query and identifies webpages that are germane to
the query. The search engine ranks the identified webpages to form a ranked list, wherein a first
webpage is positioned in the ranked list based upon a static score assigned to the first webpage.
The static score is based upon a weight assigned to a hyperlink in a second webpage, wherein the
hyperlink points to the first webpage, and further wherein the weight is based upon a value of a
feature of the hyperlink, such as a location of the hyperlink on the second webpage when the
second webpage is rendered. Further, the second webpage includes several hyperlinks that point
to different webpages, wherein each of the several hyperlinks has a different weight assigned
thereto.
L1 [0067] The computing device 900 additionally includes a data store 908 that is accessible by
the processor 902 by way of the system bus 906. The data store 908 may include executable
instructions, webpages, a search engine index, etc. The computing device 900 also includes an
input interface 910 that allows external devices to communicate with the computing device 900.
For instance, the input interface 910 may be used to receive instructions from an external
computer device, from a user, etc. The computing device 900 also includes an output interface 912 that interfaces the computing device 900 with one or more external devices. For example, the computing device 900 may display text, images, etc. by way of the output interface 912.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination A in
view of Siemiatkowski (US 2022/0253864).
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose
identifying, within the plurality of resources, one or more keywords; and
determining the relevance score based on the one or more relevance predictions and the
one or more keywords indicating resolution. However, Siemiatkowski discloses:
Siemiatkowski [0061] The metadata tag 622 may indicate that the second message 620 is
provided on behalf of the entity of the transfer in response to the metadata tag 622 included in
the first message 606. The second message 620 may be similar to the second message 120 of FIG. 1, and may be a reply/comment to the first message 606 from a provider
service similar to the provider service 112. As seen in the illustrative example of FIG. 6, the
second message 620 expresses gratitude from an entity, similar to the entity 116, for the user
having completed the transfer. In the illustrative example, the second message 620 also urges
other users of the interactive multiuser computer service to participate in their own transfers and
includes a hyperlink for doing so. In this manner, the second message 620 simultaneously
authenticates the contribution claimed by the user in the first message 606, increases the repute
of the user, and furthers the worthy cause.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings
of Siemiatkowski for the purpose of triggering computer system processes through messaging
systems.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascall in view of Bolls (US 2009/0192985).
Hereafter, above references are combination B
in response to a search query requesting resources, identifying a plurality of resources
relating to the search query, wherein the plurality of resources comprises one or more messages;
extracting, from the one or more messages, one or more hyperlinks specifying one or
more target locations;
Pascal [0029] Continuing with the example above, as the user enters Pgh St", the system
102 can infer that the message was going to be directed to the "Pittsburgh Steelers" thereby
automatically prompting content search. In addition to multi-media content, the innovation is
also capable of locating and suggesting web-links or hyperlinks to websites relevant to the
message. As multi-media content can be incorporated into a message, the links too can be
attached to the message thereby increasing the comprehensiveness of the messaging experience.
generating, via a machine learning model, one or more relevance predictions for the one
or more hyperlinks to the search query based on the search query and-the one or more
hyperlinks, and a resource type of a target location specified by at least one hyperlink of the one
or more hyperlinks wherein the machine learning model is trained to predict hyperlink relevance;
Pascal discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose above limitation. However, Bolls discloses:
Bolls [0022] FIG. 1 illustrates a one-click graphical user interface (GFI) system and process for combining search argument modification and initiation of new searching in one evolution or action. At 101 a search engine searches at least one database (illustratively including local computer device storage media, external storage media accessible through network communications, and the internet) and retrieves a plurality of results from an initial search term entered by a user. The search results are formatted and presented to the user at 103. In one aspect the results may be presented in a conventional browser window format familiar to the user, such as a list of results ranked in order of likely relevance, each list item comprising one or more of a text hyperlink linking to a storage device file location or an internet web page comprising the result item; a text selection from or abstract of the item, providing descriptive information of the item; an item identifier such as an article title or filename with storage device location information; and/or a server or desktop path or internet web address of the item; however, it will be understood that other results presentation formats may also be practiced.
Examiner Note: interpreted per specification [0005]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Pascal to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Bolls for the purpose of combining search argument modification and initiation of new searching in one evolution or action.
determining a relevance score for the plurality of resources in relation to the search query
based on the one or more relevance predictions.
Bolls [0022] FIG. 1 illustrates a one-click graphical user interface (GFI) system and process for combining search argument modification and initiation of new searching in one evolution or action. At 101 a search engine searches at least one database (illustratively including local computer device storage media, external storage media accessible through network communications, and the internet) and retrieves a plurality of results from an initial search term entered by a user. The search results are formatted and presented to the user at 103. In one aspect the results may be presented in a conventional browser window format familiar to the user, such as a list of results ranked in order of likely relevance, each list item comprising one or more of a text hyperlink linking to a storage device file location or an internet web page comprising the result item; a text selection from or abstract of the item, providing descriptive information of the item; an item identifier such as an article title or filename with storage device location information; and/or a server or desktop path or internet web address of the item; however, it will be understood that other results presentation formats may also be practiced.
Examiner Note: interpreted per specification [0005]
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination B in
view of Gharmalkar (US 10,909,198).
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose
determining that the relevance score docs not satisfy a relevance threshold; and
based on determining that the relevance score does not satisfy the relevance threshold,
presenting a subset of the plurality of resources to a user, wherein the subset of the plurality of
resources comprises a first subset of hyperlinks, wherein each respective hyperlink of the first
subset of hyperlinks is associated with a respective relevance score that satisfies the relevance
threshold.
However, Gharmalkar discloses:
Gharmalkar claim 1, A computer-implemented method for categorizing electronic messages for
compliance reviews, at least a portion of the method being performed by a computing device
comprising at least one processor and a memory, the method comprising: identifying, by the
computing device and as part of a compliance review for an organization, an uncategorized
electronic message sent or received by a supervised user within the organization; comparing, by
the computing device, the uncategorized electronic message with information gathered from
previously categorized electronic messages sent or received by supervised users within the
organization; determining, by the computing device and based at least in part on the comparison,
a relevance level of the uncategorized electronic message with respect to the compliance review,
wherein the relevance level comprises a first relevance level that
is above a relevance threshold and a second relevance level that is below the relevance threshold;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings
of Gharmalkar for the purpose of categorizing messages for compliance reviews, see title.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination B in
view of Jakobsson (US 2020/0067976).
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose
wherein determining the relevance score further comprises:
identifying a connected message to a first message of the plurality of resources, wherein
the first message comprises a first hyperlink;
determining that the connected message comprises a target keyword; and
increasing a first relevance score corresponding with the first hyperlink based on the
determining that the connected message comprises the target keyword.
However, Jacobsson discloses:
Jacobsson [0067] Suppose that if a communication contains the term "ACME Bank" and
any hyperlinks, then a risk score is increased by 75 points. Further, if the text associated with the
hyperlink contains at least one of the terms "log," "login," "log-in," "access account," or "my
account," then the score is increased by an additional 20 points. If the message contains an image
or hyperlink to an image matching the logo of "ACME Bank," (e.g., using image matching
techniques described above) then the score is increased by another 50 points. Similarly, if a
communication contains the term "your bank," and at least one of the terms "emergency,"
"immediately," or "within 24 hours," then the score is increased by 25 points. In this scenario,
messages start out being assessed a neutral score, such as zero. Depending on the score
associated with the scanning of the content of a message, different actions are taken by
platform 200, such as allowing the message to be provided to the recipient, quarantining the
message, alerting an administrator, etc. Further, as explained above, the rules, associated scores,
and threshold values can be adjusted (e.g., by an administrator of platform 200), whether on
behalf of all users, or individual users, as applicable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings
of Jakobsson for the purpose of detecting phishing attempts, see title.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination B in
view of Siemiatkowski (US 2022/0253864).
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose
wherein determining the relevance score further comprises: identifying a connected message to a
first message of the plurality of resources, wherein the first message comprises a first hyperlink;
determining that the connected message indicates at least one of gratitude, resolution, or
conclusion; and increasing a first relevance score corresponding with the first hyperlink based on
the determining that the connected message indicates at least one of gratitude, resolution, or
conclusion. However, Siemiatkowski discloses:
Siemiatkowski [0061] The metadata tag 622 may indicate that the second message 620 is
provided on behalf of the entity of the transfer in response to the metadata tag 622 included in
the first message 606. The second message 620 may be similar to the second
message 120 of FIG. 1, and may be a reply/comment to the first message 606 from a provider
service similar to the provider service 112. As seen in the illustrative example of FIG. 6, the
second message 620 expresses gratitude from an entity, similar to the entity 116, for the user
having completed the transfer. In the illustrative example, the second message 620 also urges
other users of the interactive multiuser computer service to participate in their own transfers and
includes a hyperlink for doing so. In this manner, the second message 620 simultaneously
authenticates the contribution claimed by the user in the first message 606, increases the repute
of the user, and furthers the worthy cause.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings
of Siemiatkowski for the purpose of triggering computer system processes through messaging
systems.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination B
Combination A discloses wherein determining the relevance score further comprises:
classifying the search query into a first category of a plurality of categories;
classifying the plurality of resources into one or more categories of the plurality of
categories;
determining a plurality of relatedness scores for the plurality of resources, wherein a first
resource belonging to the first category has a higher relatedness score than a second resource
belonging to a different category of the plurality of categories; and determining the relevance score based on the one or more relevance predictions and the plurality of relatedness scores.
Li abstract Technologies pertaining to ranking webpages in response to receipt of a query are
described. A search engine receives a query and identifies webpages that are germane to
the query. The search engine ranks the identified webpages to form a ranked list, wherein a first
webpage is positioned in the ranked list based upon a static score assigned to the first webpage.
The static score is based upon a weight assigned to a hyperlink in a second webpage, wherein the
hyperlink points to the first webpage, and further wherein the weight is based upon a value of a
feature of the hyperlink, such as a location of the hyperlink on the second webpage when the
second webpage is rendered. Further, the second webpage includes several hyperlinks that point
to different webpages, wherein each of the several hyperlinks has a different weight assigned
thereto.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination B in
view of Grewall (US 12,143,527)
Combination A discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose
detecting one or more emojis in the plurality of resources, wherein determining the relevance
score further comprises determining the relevance score based on a sentiment associated with the
one or more emojis. However, Grewall discloses:
Grewall (US 12,143,527) col 17 lines 33-50, In another example, calendar interface 500 visually
displays an overall sentiment for each day based on a sentiment score determined based on the
messaging data collected and analyzed. The visual sentiment displays may include emojis or
other images that convey a particular emotion, and/or color coded text, numbers, or fills that
indicate an emotional sentiment. For example, calendar interface 500 may display a smiley
face emoji for each day in which a sentiment score is above a certain threshold (e.g., indicates an
overall positive sentiment for the day) and a frowny face emoji for each day in which
a sentiment score is below a certain threshold (e.g., indicates an overall negative sentiment for
the day). In alternative embodiments, sentiment scores may be calculated and displayed for
multiple projects within a particular day, such that each calendar day may include multiple
sentiment visualizations, each sentiment visualization associated with a different project.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify combination A to obtain above limitation based on the teachings
of Grewall for the purpose of displaying on a calendar interface a smiley face emoji for each day
in which a sentiment score is above a certain threshold (e.g., indicates an overall positive
sentiment for the day).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination B
Combination A discloses determining that the relevance score satisfies a relevance threshold; and
based on determining that the relevance score satisfies the relevance threshold, outputting
the plurality of resources to the user.
Li abstract Technologies pertaining to ranking webpages in response to receipt of a query are
described. A search engine receives a query and identifies webpages that are germane to
the query. The search engine ranks the identified webpages to form a ranked list, wherein a first
webpage is positioned in the ranked list based upon a static score assigned to the first webpage.
The static score is based upon a weight assigned to a hyperlink in a second webpage, wherein the
hyperlink points to the first webpage, and further wherein the weight is based upon a value of a
feature of the hyperlink, such as a location of the hyperlink on the second webpage when the
second webpage is rendered. Further, the second webpage includes several hyperlinks that point
to different webpages, wherein each of the several hyperlinks has a different weight assigned
thereto.
L1 [0067] The computing device 900 additionally includes a data store 908 that is accessible by
the processor 902 by way of the system bus 906. The data store 908 may include executable
instructions, webpages, a search engine index, etc. The computing device 900 also includes an
input interface 910 that allows external devices to communicate with the computing device 900.
For instance, the input interface 910 may be used to receive instructions from an external
computer device, from a user, etc. The computing device 900 also includes
an output interface 912 that interfaces the computing device 900 with one or more external
devices. For example, the computing device 900 may display text, images, etc. by way of
the output interface 912.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 and 18-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant Argues:
Li and Pascal do not disclose "generatinjg... one or more relevance predictions for the one or more hyperlinks... based on... resource types of the one or more target locations"
As discussed during the Interview, Li does not disclose determining a resource type or using a resource type to determine a relevance score used to rank a search result. Li states that "the weight is based upon a value of a feature of the hyperlink, such as a location of the hyperlink on the second webpage when the second webpage is rendered." Li, Abstract. Li further discloses ranking links based on hyperlink location with respect to a source-page's GUI regions. For example, Li states that "since the first hyperlink 120 is included in the 'title' section 112 while the fourth hyperlink 126 is included in the 'footer' section 118, the first weight assigned to the first hyperlink 120 is greater than the fourth weight assigned to the fourth hyperlink 126." Li 28. Noticeably absent from Li is any disclosure relating to the resource type being accessed from a hyperlink.
In contrast to the combination proposed by the Office, claim 1 discloses "generating... one or more relevance predictions for the one or more hyperlinks... based on the search query, the one or more hyperlinks, and resource types of the one or more target locations" (emphasis added). Additionally, claim 1 recites "wherein a first hyperlink specifying a first target location having a first resource type has a lower relevance than a second hyperlink specifying a second target location having a second resource type" (emphasis added). Similarly, claim 2 discloses "generating... one or more relevance predictions for the one or more hyperlinks... based on... a set of resource types of the target locations, wherein the set of resource types is specified by the one or more hyperlinks." Furthermore, the specifications provide examples of resource types, such as "documents, web pages, files, downloads, platforms, or other types of locations." Current Application at 5.
Based on the arguments above, Applicant submits that the combination of Li and Pascal do not disclose claim 1 or claim 2. For at least the same reasons, Applicant submits that the combination of Li and Pascal do not disclose claim 1. Because the combination of Li and Pascal fails to teach or suggest the amended claims 1, 2, or 12, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections and favorable reconsideration of the pending claims.
Applicant Argues:
Jakobsson does not disclose "identifying a connected message that is separate from and is a reply to a first message of the plurality of resources"
The Office rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Pascal in view of Li in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0067976 ("Jakobsson"). Applicant disagrees. Applicant has amended claim 3 to recite (1) "identifying a connected message that is separate from and is a reply to a first message of the plurality of resources" and (2) "increasing a first relevance score corresponding with the first hyperlink based on the determining that the text of the connected message comprises the target keyword" (emphasis added). Applicant submits that Jakobsson does not disclose increasing a relevance score corresponding with a hyperlink in a first message based on a target keyword in the text of a separate reply message. Furthermore, Li and Pascal do not resolve this deficiency.
Examiner Responds:
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 ETIENNE PIERRE LEROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-4022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571 272 4080. 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.
/ETIENNE P LEROUX/Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights