UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent aad Trademark Office
`Addlas: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`~~~4~~22313·1450
`www.uspto.sov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`90/011,010
`
`0512412010
`
`5544352
`
`3905-102
`
`2567
`
`6449
`7590
`0612912011
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`1425 K STREET, N.W.
`SUITE 800
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`EXAMINER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DATE MAILED: 0612912011
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`'· PT0·90C (Rev. 10/03)
`
`EXHIBIT 2002
`Facebook,Inc. etaL
`v.
`Software Rights Archive, LLC
`CASE IPR2013-00479
`
`

`

`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. BOX1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`'WWN uspro.gov
`
`CENTRAL REEXAMINATION UNIT
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON, PC
`
`P.O. BOX 1022
`
`MINN~POLIS, MN 55440-1022
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITIAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 901011.010.
`
`PATENT NO. 5544352.
`
`,,, ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)
`
`

`

`Notice of Intent to Issue
`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
`
`Control No.
`
`90/011,010
`
`Examiner
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`5544352
`
`Art Unit
`
`3992
`JOSHUA CAMPBELL
`- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address ••
`
`1. ~ Prosecution on the merits is (or remains) closed in this ex parte reexamination proceeding. This proceeding is
`subject to reopening at the initiative of the Office or upon petition. Cf. 37 CFR 1.313(a). A Certificate will be
`issued in view of
`(a) ~ Patent owner's communication(s) filed: 01 June 2011.
`(b) D Patent owner's late response filed: __ .
`(c) D Patent owner's failure to file an appropriate response to the Office action mailed: __ .
`(d) D Patent owner's failure to timely file an Appeal Brief (37 CFR 41.31).
`(e) D Other: __
`Status of Ex Parte Reexamination:
`(f) Change in the Specification: D Yes ~ No
`(g) Change in the Drawing(s): DYes ~No
`(h) Status of the Claim(s):
`(1} Patent claim(s) confirmed: 26-42 and 44.
`(2) Patent claim(s) amended (including dependent on amended claim(s)): __
`(3) Patent claim(s) canceled: 45.
`(4) Newly presented claim(s) patentable: 53-61.
`(5) Newly presented canceled claims: __ . _
`
`(6) Patent claim(s) D previously D currently disclaimed:
`
`(7) Patent claim(s) not subject to reexamination: 1-25.43 and 46-52.
`
`2. ~ Note the attached statement of reasons for patentability and/or confirmation. Any comments considered
`necessary by patent owner regarding reasons for patentability and/or confirmation must be submitted promptly
`to avoid processing delays. Such submission(s) should be labeled: "Comments On Statement of Reasons for
`Patentability and/or Confirmation."
`3. 0 Note attached NOTICE OF REFERENCES CITED (PT0-892).
`4. ~ Note attached LIST OF REFERENCES CITED (PTO/SB/08 or PTO/SB/08 substitute).
`5. D The drawing correction request filed on __ is: D approved
`D disapproved.
`6. D Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`a)D All b)D Some*
`c)D None
`of the certified copies have
`D been received.
`D not been received.
`D been filed in Application No. __ .
`D been filed in reexamination Control No. __ .
`D been received by the International Bureau in PCT Application No. __ .
`
`* Certified copies not received: __ .
`
`7. D Note attached Examiner's Amendment.
`
`8. D Note attached Interview Summary (PT0-474).
`9. D Other: __ .
`
`cc: Requester (if third party requester)
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
`PTOL-469 (Rev. 05-10)
`
`Part of Paper No 20110607
`
`

`

`,-:t
`
`,.
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/011,010
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1)
`
`This Office action addresses claims 26-42,44,45, and 53-61 of United States Patent
`
`Number 5,544,352 (hereinafter "Egger"), for which it has been determined in the Order Granting
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination (hereafter the "Order") mailed 8/2/2010 that a substantial new question
`
`of patentability was raised in the Request for Ex Parte reexamination filed on 5/24/2010
`
`(hereafter the "Request"). Claims 26-42, 44, 45, and 53-61 are subject to reexamination. Claims
`
`1-25, 43, and 46-52 are not subject to reexamination. Claim 45 has been cancelled.
`
`2)
`
`This is a response to the amendment filed on 6/1/2011. Claims 26-42, 44, and 53-61 are
`
`confirmed/allowed below.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`3)
`
`Where the IDS citations are submitted but not described, the examiner is only responsible
`
`for cursorily reviewing the references. The initials of the examiner on the PT0-1449 indicate
`
`only that degree of review unless the reference is either applied against the claims, or discussed
`
`by the examiner as pertinent art of interest, in a subsequent office action. See Guidelines for
`
`Reexamination of Cases in View of In re Portola Packaging, Inc., 110 F .3d 786, 42 USPQ2d
`
`1295 (Fed. Cir. 1997), 64 FRat 15347, 1223 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office at 125 (response to comment
`
`6).
`
`Consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means that the
`
`examiner will consider the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search
`
`files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of
`
`search. The initials of the examiner placed adjacent to the citations on the PT0-1449 or
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/011,010
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`PTO/SB/08A and 08B or its equivalent mean that the information has been considered by the
`
`examiner to the extent noted above.
`
`Regarding IDS submissions MPEP 2256 recites the following: "Where patents,
`
`publications, and other such items of information are submitted by a party (patent owner or
`
`requester) in compliance with the requirements of the rules, the requisite degree of consideration
`
`to be given to such information will be normally limited by the degree to which the party filing
`
`the information citation has explained the content and relevance of the information."
`
`Accordingly, the IDS submissions have been considered by the Examiner only with the
`
`scope required by MPEP 2256, unless otherwise noted.
`
`4)
`
`The rejections mailed utilized the following prior art references:
`
`References Utilized
`
`a.
`
`Fox- Edward Fox, "Extending the Boolean and Vector Space Models of
`
`Information Retrieval with P-Norm Queries and Multiple Concept Types." Cornell
`
`University, 1983
`
`b.
`
`Garner- Ralph Gamer, et al., "A Computer-Oriented Graph Theoretic Analysis
`
`Of Citation Index Structures," Three Drexel Information Science Research Studies, Ed.
`
`Flood, B., Drexel Press, 1967
`
`c.
`
`Cleveland- Donald B. Cleveland, "Ann-Dimensional Retrieval Model," Journal
`
`OfThe American Society For Information Science, October ,1976, Vol. 27, No, 6, pp.
`
`342-47
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/011,010
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page4
`
`d.
`
`Salton 1990- Gerard Salton and Chris Buckley, "Approaches To Text Retrieval
`
`For Structured Documents," Dept. of Computer Science, Cornell University, January
`
`1990
`
`e.
`
`Aversa Elizabeth Aversa, "Research on Research: Customized Citation
`
`Analysis for Governmental, Industrial,.and Academic Clients," Current Comments, p. 77,
`
`June 8, 1992
`
`f.
`
`Can- Fazli Can and Esen A. Ozkarahan, "A Dynamic Cluster Maintenance
`
`System for Information Retrieval," ACM, Vol. 6, p. 123, 1987
`
`Statement of Reasons for Patentability and/or Confirmation
`
`5)
`
`Claims 26-42, and 44 are confirmed and claims 53-61 are allowed.
`
`6)
`
`Examiner notes that the amendment filed 2/23/2011 and the declaration from Paul Jacobs
`
`have been considered.
`
`7)
`
`With regard to the rejections utilizing Fox, patent owner (PO) has shown that Fox
`
`discloses that the first numerical representation and second numerical representation are created
`
`independently from each other and therefore does not teach generating a second numerical
`
`representation of each object indicating indirect relationships based on the analysis of the first
`
`numerical representation which indicates direct relationships. PO has also shown that Fox does
`
`not weight different indirect relationships differently.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/011 ,010
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`With regard to the rejections utilizing Garner, PO has shown that Gamer discloses, "The
`
`purpose of this research was to investigate whether or not the mathematical discipline of graph
`
`theory is applicable to the analysis of citation indexing, and if it is applicable to identify these
`
`areas and perform a graph theory analysis. Graph theory was found applicable. It was possible to
`
`analyze all of a list of citation index terms and structures. However, a detailed analysis of the
`
`physical representation of the citation index search product has been omitted since it has been
`
`found that an analysis of the topological characteristics of a citation index search product
`
`requires the application of concepts significantly different from those employed in this report."
`
`and therefore does not teach searching objects in a database based on the performed numerical ·
`
`analyses.
`
`As PO has overcome the teachings of Fox and Garner, any proposed combinations
`
`utilizing Fox and Garner as the primary references are also overcome.
`
`8)
`
`Thus, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for patentability and/or
`
`confirmation ofthe claims found patentable in this reexamination proceeding:
`
`Referring to claim 26, the claim is allowable over the prior art that was explained in the
`
`request and determined to raise a substantial new question of patentability in the order granting
`
`reexamination and over the prior art that was applied and discussed by the examiner in the
`
`present reexamination proceeding because the prior art does not explicitly teach analyzing the
`
`first numerical representations for indirect relationships existing between or among objects in the
`
`database, generating a second numerical representation of each object based on the analysis of
`
`the first numerical representation, and storing the second numerical representation for use in
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/011,010
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page6
`
`computerized searching in combination with the remaining elements or features of the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`Referring to claim 41, the claim is allowable over the prior art that was explained in the
`
`request and determined to raise a substantial new question of patentability in the order granting
`
`reexamination and over the prior art that was applied and discussed by the examiner in the
`
`present reexamination proceeding because the prior art does not explicitly teach patterning,
`
`comprising the step of creating a third numerical representation for each object using the second
`
`numerical representations, wherein the third numerical representation for each object is
`
`determined from an examination of the second numerical representations for occurrences of
`
`patterns that define indirect relations between or among objects in combination with the
`
`remaining elements or features of the claimed invention.
`
`Referring to claim 53, the claim is allowable over the prior art that was explained in the
`
`request and determined to raise a substantial new question of patentability in the order granting
`
`reexamination and over the prior art that was applied and discussed by the examiner in the
`
`present reexamination proceeding because the prior art does not explicitly teach generating,
`
`using a computer processor and said numerical representations, a value for said individual
`
`objects in said first set of objects, wherein said value accounts for direct and indirect
`
`relationships that exist with other objects in said first set of objects, wherein said generating
`
`includes quantifying, for a plurality of said objects in said first set of objects, one or more
`
`indirect relationships, wherein quantifying indirect relationships for said plurality of objects
`
`includes scoring the following three indirect relationships: i) B cites f and f cites A, ii) B cites f, f
`
`cites e, and e cites A, and iii) B cites f, f cites e, e cites d, and d cites A, wherein at least one of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/011,010
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`B, d, e, f, and A are objects in the set of objects and said scoring of indirect relationships uses
`
`weights that are calculated using one or more of said objects' quantity of outbound direct
`
`relationships, in combination with the remaining elements or features of the claimed invention.
`
`Referring to claim 61, the claim is allowable over the prior art that was explained in the
`
`request and determined to raise a substantial new question of patentability in the order granting
`
`reexamination and over the prior art that was applied and discussed by the examiner in the
`
`present reexamination proceeding because the prior art does not explicitly teach calculating a
`
`value for the individual objects among the set of objects, the value accounting for direct and
`
`indirect relationships existing among objects, wherein the calculation considers at least the
`
`following indirect relationships for a given object A orB: i) B cites f and f cites A, ii) B cites f, f
`
`cites e, and e cites A, and iii) B cites f, f cites e, e cites d, and d cites A, wherein at least one of
`
`B, d, e, f, and A are objects in the first set of objects and certain indirect relationships contribute
`
`greater value to the value than other indirect relationships, in combination with the remaining
`
`elements or features of the claimed invention.
`
`Claims 27-40, 42, 44, and 54-60 depend on confirmed independent claims, and are
`
`therefore also confirmed.
`
`9)
`
`Any comments considered necessary by PATENT OWNER regarding the above
`
`statement must be submitted promptly to avoid processing delays. Such submission by the
`
`patent owner should be labeled: "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Patentability and/or
`
`Confirmation" and will be placed in the reexamination file.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/011,010
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`All correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be directed
`
`Conclusion
`
`as follows:
`
`By U.S. Postal Service Mail to:
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`ATTN: Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`By FAX to:
`
`(571) 273-9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`By hand to:
`
`Customer Service Window
`Randolph Building
`401 Dulany St.
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`ByEFS-Web:
`
`Registered users ofEFS-Web may alternatively submit such correspondence via the
`electronic filing system EFS-Web, at
`
`https://sportal.uspto.gov/authenticate/authenticateuserlocalepf.html
`
`EFS-Web offers the benefit of quick submission to the particular area of the Office that
`needs to act on the correspondence. Also, EFS-Web submissions are "soft scanned" (i.e.,
`electronically uploaded) directly into the official file for the reexamination proceeding, which
`offers parties the opportunity to review the content of their submissions after the "soft scanning"
`process is complete.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/011,010
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`Reexamination Legal Advisor or Examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be
`
`directed to the Central Reexamination Unit at telephone number (571) 272-7705.
`
`/Joshua D Campbell/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`