~-~ (~} UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`8
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Of COMMERCE
`Unittd States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`~~~!%~4~rginia 22)13-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`90/011 ,012
`
`FILING DATE
`
`05/2512010
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`6,233,571
`
`23373.0009RX I
`
`4388
`
`.
`
`6449
`08/13f2011
`7590
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`1425 K STREET, N.W.
`SUITE 800
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`EXAMINER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DATE MAILED: 08/13/2011
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`PT0-90C (Rev. 10/03)
`
`001
`
`Facebook Inc. Ex. 1010
`
`

`

`<I> UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.(SD)
`P.O. BOX 1022
`MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Pa1ents and Trademark Office
`P.O.Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`Date: ~-13""\\
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO.: 90011012
`PATENT NO.: 6233571
`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)).
`
`002
`
`Facebook Inc. Ex. 1010
`
`

`

`Notice of Intent to Issue
`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
`
`Control No.
`
`90/011,012
`
`Examiner
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`6,233,571
`
`Art Unit
`
`3992
`JOSHUA CAMPBELL
`-- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`
`1.· [8] 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) [8] Patent owner's communication(s) filed: 13 July 2011 .
`(b) 0 Patent owner's late response filed: _ _ .
`(c) 0 Patent owner's failure to file an appropriate response to the Office action mailed: __ .
`(d) 0 Patent owner's failure to timely file an Appeal Brief (37 CFR 41.31 ).
`(e) 0 Other: __
`Status of Ex Parte Reexamination:
`(f) Change in the Specification: 0 Yes [8] No
`0 Yes [8] No
`(g) Change in the Drawing(s):
`(h) Status of the Claim(s):
`(1) Patent claim(s) confirmed: 12-15.
`(2) Patent claim(s) amended (including dependent on amended claim(s)): 1. 3-11 . and 16-22
`(3) Patent claim(s) canceled: __ .
`(4) Newly presented claim(s) patentable: 23-32.
`(5) Newly presented canceled claims: __ . _
`(6) Patent claim(s) 0 previously 0 currently disclaimed: __
`(7) Patent claim(s) not subject to reexamination : .f..
`
`2. [8] 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. 0 Note attached LIST OF REFERENCES CITED (PTO/SB/08 or PTO/SB/08 substitute).
`5. 0 The drawing correction request filed on __ is: 0 approved 0 disapproved.
`6. 0 Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`a)O All b)O Some•
`c)D None
`of the certified copies have
`0 been received. ·
`0 not been received.
`0 been filed in Application No. _ _
`.
`0 been filed in reexamination Control No. __ .
`0 been received by the International Bureau in PCT Application No. __ .
`• Certified copies not received: _ _ .
`7. 0 Note attached Examiner's Amendment.
`8. 0 Note attached Interview Summary (PT0-474).
`9. 0 Other: __ .
`
`cc: Requester (if third partv requester}
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-469 (Rev. 0~ 10)
`Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
`
`Part of Paper No 20110803
`
`003
`
`Facebook Inc. Ex. 1010
`
`

`

`J
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/0 II ,012
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1)
`
`This Office action addresses claims 1 and 3-22 and·new claims 23-32 of United States
`
`Patent No. 6,233,571,832,494 (hereinafter "Egger"), for which it has been determined in the
`
`Order Granting Ex Parte Reexamination (hereafter the "Order") mailed July 28, 2010, that a
`
`substantial new question of patentability was raised in the Request for Ex Parte reexamination
`
`filed on 5/25/20 I 0 (hereafter the " Request"). Claims 1 and 3-32 are subject to reexamination.
`
`Claim 2 is not subject to reexamination.
`
`2)
`
`This is a response to the amendment filed on 7/13/20 II. Claims 1 and 3-32 are
`
`confirmed and/or patentable below.
`
`3)
`
`The Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate mailed on August 1, 2011 has
`
`been vacated. This Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate is a replacement that
`
`corrects errors found'within the vacated Notice
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`4)
`
`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., II 0 F.3d 786, 42 USPQ2d
`
`1295 (Fed. Cir. 1997), 64 FRat 15347, 1223 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office at 125 (response to comment
`
`6).
`
`004
`
`Facebook Inc. Ex. 1010
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/011,012
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`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
`
`PTO/SB/08A and 088 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.
`
`References Utilized
`
`5)
`
`The rejections mailed utilized the following prior art references:
`
`a.
`
`Conklin- J. Conklin, "Hypertext: An Introduction and Survey," IEEE, 17-40,
`
`1987
`
`b.
`
`Botafogo 1993- R.A. Botafogo, "Cluster Analysis for Hypertext Systems,"
`
`ACM- SIGIR'93, Vol. 6, pp. 116-125, 1993
`
`005
`
`Facebook Inc. Ex. 1010
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/0 II ,012
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`c.
`
`Pitkow- 1. Pitkow and K.A. Bharat, "Webviz: A Tool For World-Wide Web
`
`Access Log Analysis" in Proceedings ofthe First International World-Wide Web
`
`Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, May 1994
`
`Statement of Reasons for Patentability and/or Confirmation
`
`6)
`
`Claims l and 3-32 are confirmed and/or patentable.
`
`7)
`
`With regard to the rejections utilizing Conklin, patent owner (PO) has shown that
`
`Conklin does not disclose generating source map using cluster links. Cluster links are defined by
`
`the specification of the Egger patent as follows:
`
`"A cluster link 2004 is a relationship between two nodes 2008, for example, two nodes
`
`2008 both directly linked to the same intermediate nodes 2008, may be indirectly linked
`
`through many paths and therefore have a cluster link 2004 between them. The cluster
`
`links 2004 may be determined using the specific or general methods described later for
`
`fincjing relationships in a database 54. " (column 13, lines 32-38 of Egger).
`
`As shown by the PO Conklin does not disclose the use of anything that would be equated to the
`
`claimed "cluster links" when generating a source map.
`
`With regard to the rejections utilizing Botafogo 1993, patent owner (PO) has shown that
`
`while Botafogo 1993 discloses analyzing relationships of documents based on their-position is
`
`cluster based aggregates, Botafogo does not teach analyzing indirect relationships by scoring the
`
`paths of direct links between indirectly related nodes based on the weights associated with the
`
`, direct links that make up the paths between the nodes. PO has also shown that Botafogo does
`
`006
`
`Facebook Inc. Ex. 1010
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/011,012
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`not teach identifying web pages by using only the located indirectly related web pages as
`
`claimed and argued by PO.
`
`As PO has overcome the teachings of Conklin and Botafogo 1993, any proposed
`
`combinations utilizing Conklin and Botafogo 1993 as the primary references are also overcome.
`
`8)
`
`Thus, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for patentability and/or
`
`confirmation of the claims found patentable in this reexamination proceeding:
`
`Referring to claim 1 , 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 a
`
`source map using cluster links, wherein the source map represents hyperjump links that identify
`
`a·chosen node as a destination of a link in combination with the remaining elements or features
`
`of the claimed invention.
`
`Referring to claim 5, 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 that proximity
`
`analyzing comprises: analyzing indirect relationships by scoring one or more paths of direct links
`
`between two indirectly related nodes by analyzing weights associated with direct links that make
`
`up the path between the nodes using at least a damping factor; wherein one or more values
`
`resulting from the proximity analysis is stored in an index prior to searching by an end user and
`
`007
`
`Facebook Inc. Ex. 1010
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/011,012
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`is used to determine an object's importance; using the values of the proximity analysis to
`
`compare the object's importance to other objects in a pool of objects identified by using at least a
`
`wo~d search for purposes of ranking search results; wherein said ranking of search results is also
`
`influenced by the number of times an object is visited; in combination with the remaining
`
`elements or features of the claimed invention.
`
`Referring to claim 12, 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
`
`Universal Resource Locators, including the identified Universal Resource Locators, wherein
`
`Universal Resource Locators which have an indirect relationship to the chosen web page are
`
`located, wherein the step of analyzing further comprises cluster analyzing the Universal
`
`Resource Locators for indirect relationships; and displaying identities of web pages, wherein the
`
`located Universal Resource Locators are used to identify web pages in combination with the
`
`remaining elements or features of the claimed invention.
`
`Referring to claim 16, the claim is allowable over the prior art that was explained in the
`
`request and deterrnin~d 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
`
`Universal Resource Locators, including the identified Universal Resource Locators, wherein
`
`Universal Resource Locators which have an indirect relationship to the chosen document are
`
`located, wherein the step of analyzing further comprises analyzing the Universal Resource
`
`008
`
`Facebook Inc. Ex. 1010
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/011 ,0 12
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`Locators for indirect relationships using cluster links in combination with the remaining elements
`
`or features of the claimed invention.
`
`Referring to claim 2 1, 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 determining
`
`hyperjump data from within the accessed hyperjump data that has an indirect reference to the
`
`chosen node using the identified hyperjump data, wherein the step of determining comprises
`
`non-semantically generating a set of candidate cluster links for nodes indirectly related to the
`
`chosen node using the hyperjump data, assigning weights to the candidate cluster links and
`
`deriving actual cluster links from the set of candidate cluster links based on the assigned weights
`
`in combination with the remaining elements or features of the claimed invention.
`
`Referring to claim 22, 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 an that was applied and discussed by the examiner in the
`
`present reexamination proceeding because the prior art does not explicitly teach determining
`
`hyperjump data from within the accessed hyperjump data that has an indirect reference to the
`
`chosen node by proximity indexing the identified hyperjump data in combination with the
`
`remaining elements or features of the claimed invention. None of the prior art that was applied
`
`or discussed contains a teaching that would be synonymous to the Egger specification's
`
`discussi9n of proximity indexing as follows:
`
`009
`
`Facebook Inc. Ex. 1010
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/0 ll ,012
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`'"'Proximity indexing" is a method of indexing that uses statistical techniques and
`
`empirically generated algorithms to organize and categorize data stored in databases or
`
`on a network. The Proximity Indexing Application Program 62 applies the Proximity
`
`indexing method to a database 54. One embodiment of the present invention uses the
`
`Proximity Indexing Application Program 62 to Proximity index textual objects used for
`
`legal research by indexing objects based on their degree of relatedness--in terms of
`
`precedent and topic--to one another.
`
`Applying the method to legal research, the "Proximity indexing" system treats any
`
`discrete text as a "textual object." Textual objects may contain "citatiQns, "which are
`
`explicit references to other textual objects. Any legal textual object may have a number of
`
`different designations of labels. For example, 392 U.S. I, 102 S.Ct 415, 58 U.S.L. W.
`
`1103, etc. may all refer to the same textual object.
`
`Cases are fuJI textual objects that are not subsets of other textual objects. Subjects
`
`of a full textual object include words, phrases, paragraphs, or portions of olher full
`
`textual objects that are referred to in a certain full textual object. (The system does no/
`
`·treat textual objects as subsets of themselves.)
`
`Every case, or ''full" textual object, is assigned a counting-number "name"--
`
`designated by a /euer ofrhe alphabet in this description--corresponding to its
`
`chronological order in the database 54. Obviously, textual objects may contain citations
`
`only to textual objects that precede them. In other words, for full textual objects, if "B
`
`cites A, " (i.e. "A is an element of B" or "the set 'B' contains the name A '''), textual object
`
`A came before B, or symbolically, A <B. Every textual object B contains a quantity of
`
`010
`
`Facebook Inc. Ex. 1010
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/011 ,012
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`citations to full textual objects, expressed as Q(B), greater than or equal to zero, such
`
`that Q(B)<B.
`
`Textual objects other than full textual objects may be subsets of full textual
`
`objects and of each other. For example, a section, page, or paragraph of text taken from
`
`a longer text may be treated as a textual object. Phrases and words are treated as a
`
`special kind of textual object, where Q(w} =O. Sections, pages, and paragraphs are
`
`generally subsets of only one full textual object, and may be organized chronologically
`
`under the numerical "name" of that full textual object. For purposes of chronology,
`
`phrases and words are treated as textual objects that precede every full textual object,
`
`and can generally be treated as members of a set with name "0, "or be assigned arbitrary
`
`negative numbers."
`
`(column 13, line 4 1-column 14, line 20 of~gger)
`
`Referring to claim 23, the claim is allowable over the prior art that was explained in the
`
`request and determined to raise a substantial new question of patentabi lity 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
`
`indirect relationships by scoring one or more paths of direct links between two indirectly related
`
`nodes by analyzing weights associated with direct links that make up the path between the nodes
`
`in combination with the remaining elements or features of the claimed invention.
`
`Referring to claim 27, the claim is allowable over the prior art that was explained in the
`
`request and determined to raise a substantial new question of patentabi lity in the order granting
`
`011
`
`Facebook Inc. Ex. 1010
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/0 II ,012
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`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 wherein cluster
`
`analyzing for indirect relationships comprises generating and deriving cluster links, wherein said
`
`generating cluster links comprises scoring a path of direct link weights between two nodes
`
`relating to the world wide web using at least a quantity of hyperlinks within an object, and
`
`wherein said identification of web pages using the located Universal Resource Locators
`
`comprises using the located Universal Resource Locators as part of an analysis to determine a
`
`rank used to locate or display objects responsive to a search in combination with the remaining
`
`elements or features of the claimed invention.
`
`Referring to claim 28, 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 wherein the step
`
`of displaying is influenced by a number of times a web object is visited and wherein the cluster
`
`analysis uses a damping factor in combination with the remaining elements or features of the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`Referring to claim 30, the claim is allowable over th~ 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 and
`
`deriving cluster links wherein said generating comprises scoring a path of direct link weights
`
`012
`
`Facebook Inc. Ex. 1010
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/011,012
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`between two nodes by recursively analyzing the set of direct links and using a damping factor in
`
`combination with the remaining elements or features of the claimed invention.
`
`Referring to claim 32, 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 and
`
`deriving cluster links, wherein said generating comprises scoring a path of direct link weights
`
`between two indirectly related nodes by recursively analyzing the set of direct links, using a
`
`damping factor, and using a quantity of direct references within an object to another object; and
`
`wherein said direct reference to a chosen document comprises a reference from the chosen
`
`document to another object in combination with the remaining elements or features of the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`Claims 3, 4, 6-ll, 13-15, 17-20, 24-26, 29, and 31 depend on patentable and/or
`
`confirmed independent claims, and are therefore also patentable and/or 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.
`
`013
`
`Facebook Inc. Ex. 1010
`
`

`

`'
`
`'
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/0 II ,012
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`All correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be directed
`
`Conclusion
`
`as follows:
`
`By U.S. Postal Service Mail to:
`
`Mai l Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`ATTN: Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 223 13- 1450
`
`By FAX to:
`
`(57 1) 273-9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`By hand to:
`
`Customer Service Window
`Randolph Building
`40 I Dulany St.
`Alexandria, VA 223 14
`
`By EFS-Web:
`
`Registered users of EFS-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.
`
`014
`
`Facebook Inc. Ex. 1010
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/0 ll ,012
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`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
`
`IRSD/
`
`015
`
`Facebook Inc. Ex. 1010
`
`