Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 25, 2021

2020004899 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/299,330 10/20/2016 Anand Sumatilal Bhalgat 26295-33473/US 1045 87851 7590 03/25/2021 Facebook/Fenwick Silicon Valley Center 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 EXAMINER VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3688 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): fwfacebookpatents@fenwick.com ptoc@fenwick.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANAND SUMATILAL BHALGAT and HAO SONG Appeal 2020-004899 Application 15/299,330 Technology Center 3600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Facebook, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-004899 Application 15/299,330 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to determining accuracy of a model determining a likelihood of a user performing an action after presentation of content. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations italicized: 1. A method comprising: obtaining, at an online system comprising at least one hardware processor, a content item associated with a bid amount and with an action that is performable on content accessible following selection of a link included in the content item, the bid amount received by the online system in response to the action being performed; determining, by the online system, a set of users of the online system eligible to be presented with the obtained content item; determining, by the online system, an average bid amount in response to users selecting links included in other content items presented to users of the set of users by the online system, each of the other content items being associated with corresponding bid amounts; for each opportunity to present the obtained content item to a user of the online system identified by the online system during a time interval: obtaining, by the online system, a model determining a likelihood of the user performing the action that is performable on content accessible following selection of a link included in the obtained content item; obtaining, by the online system, an additional model determining a likelihood of the user selecting the link included in the obtained content item; determining, by the online system, an expected value to the online system of presenting the obtained content item to the user based on the model and the bid amount associated with the obtained content item; Appeal 2020-004899 Application 15/299,330 3 determining, by the online system, an additional expected value to the online system based on the additional model and the average bid amount; including, by the online system, the obtained content item in association with the additional expected value in one or more selection processes selecting content for presentation to the user; modifying, by the online system, the model based on information received from the online system in response to the one or more selection processes selecting the obtained content item and the user performing the action associated with the obtained content item after being presented with the obtained content item; determining, by the online system, a rate of change of the expected value to the online system of presenting the obtained content item to the user over time; and responsive to a magnitude of the rate of change of the expected value to the online system of presenting the obtained content item to the user over time being less than a threshold value, providing, by the online system, a suggestion to a providing user associated with the obtained content item to increase the bid amount associated with the obtained content item. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Singh US 2002/0165849 A1 Nov. 7, 2002 Lukose US 2006/0041472 A1 Feb. 23, 2006 Agarwal US 8,504,437 B1 Aug. 6, 2013 REJECTIONS In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Ans. 27. The Examiner also withdrew the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). See Ans. 27–28. Appeal 2020-004899 Application 15/299,330 4 The Examiner also withdrew the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Advisory Action dated January 13, 2020. Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to satisfy the written description requirement. Ans. 28. Claims 1–4 and 8–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal and Singh. Final Act. 13. Claims 5–7 and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal, Singh, and Lukose. Final Act. 28. OPINION Written Description Rejection Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as lacking an adequate, original written description. Ans. 28. We agree with Appellant that paragraphs 7–10 and 44–45 of the Specification provide sufficient details to reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter (i.e., “obtaining a model” and “an additional model”) as of the filing date. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as lacking an adequate, original written description. Obviousness Rejection Claims 1–4 and 8–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal and Singh. Appellant argues that the cited references fail to teach, for each opportunity to present the obtained content item to a user of the online system identified by the online system during a time interval: obtaining, by the online system, a model determining a likelihood of the user performing the action that is performable Appeal 2020-004899 Application 15/299,330 5 on content accessible following selection of a link included in the obtained content item, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8.2 Appellant argues that Agarwal’s selection of a completion of partial text input does not obtain a model for determining the likelihood of the user performing the action that is performable on content accessible following selection of a link. Id. at 10. Instead, Appellant argues, “Agrawal merely determines an input completion suffix based on the likelihood of a user selecting a link represented by the textual input that is represented by the combination of the user prefix and the Agrawal system’s completed suffix.” Id. We are not persuaded by this argument because as the Examiner explains, Agrawal’s suggestion engine 604 analyzes user search history data, which the Examiner finds teaches the claimed “obtaining a model,” and we agree. Ans. 30 (citing Agrawal 12:49–60). Agrawal also teaches, (see Agrawal claim 11), that its system determines, “for each of the advertisement-completion pairs, whether the likelihood that a completion in the advertisement-completion pair represents the request exceeds a threshold, and in response to determining that none of the determined likelihoods exceed the threshold, waiting for more textual input.” Id. Agrawal explains that “content” provided in response to user input can be of the form of Web content and/or Web-based advertisements that are associated with the suggestions. See Agrawal, 4:25–35; Final Act. 13. “Non- ad Web content can include links to web sites or other content, news, 2 Appellant did not number the Appeal Brief pages. We assign the first page of the Appeal Brief as page 1. Appeal 2020-004899 Application 15/299,330 6 weather, images, video, auctions, related information, answers to questions, or other information.” Id.; see also Final Act. 14 (citing Agarwal 2:55–59). Although Appellant argues that Agarwal does not teach determining a likelihood of the user performing “the action that is performable on content” following selection of a link, Appellant provides insufficient evidence to show or explain why the Specification or claims limit “the action that is performable on content” in a way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Agarwal’s teachings identified in the Final Action and Answer. Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2–20 fall therewith. See Appeal Br. 9; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION We reverse the rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)1 as failing to satisfy the written description requirement. We affirm the rejection of claims 1–4 and 8–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal and Singh. We affirm the rejection of claims 5–7 and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal, Singh, and Lukose. Because we affirm at least on ground of rejection for each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). Appeal 2020-004899 Application 15/299,330 7 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 112(a) Written description 1–20 1–4, 8–17 103 Agarwal, Singh 1–4, 8–17 5–7, 18–20 103 Agarwal, Singh, Lukose 5–7, 18–20 Overall Outcome: 1–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED