Guven Burc. Arpat et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 2, 201914023136 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/023,136 09/10/2013 Guven Burc Arpat 26295-23512/US 7426 87851 7590 12/02/2019 Facebook/Fenwick Silicon Valley Center 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 EXAMINER ZIDANIC, MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2122 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2019 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 GUVEN BURC ARPAT, SAIYAD SHAH, and SRIKANT RAMAKRISHNA AYYAR ________________ Appeal 2018-006848 Application 14/023,136 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–25. 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 2018-006848 Application 14/023,136 2 Summary of the disclosure Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to inferring a positive or negative “sentiment polarity of a user toward content of a page . . . based on received information about an interaction between the user and the page [or] . . . analysis of a topic extracted from text on the page.” Abstract. The “sentiment polarity then may be associated with any second or subsequent interaction from the user related to the page content.” Id. Exemplary claims (key limitations emphasized)2 1. A method comprising: identifying text content of a page of a social networking system; extracting a topic from the text content; receiving information about a first interaction between a user of the social networking system and the page; determining a sentiment of the user toward the text content based on the received information about the first interaction; inferring by a computer system that the user has a sentiment polarity toward the extracted topic based on the received information about the first interaction, the sentiment polarity corresponding to the user’s sentiment toward the text content and indicating a positive or negative sentiment of the user toward the topic; storing the inferred sentiment polarity of the user toward the extracted topic; receiving a second interaction from the user related to the extracted topic; and 2 Citations to or excerpts from the claims are based on the Corrected Appeal Brief filed October 12, 2017. All other Appeal Brief are to the original Appeal Brief filed August 24, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”). Appeal 2018-006848 Application 14/023,136 3 associating with the second interaction the stored sentiment polarity of the user toward the extracted topic. 23. A method comprising: identifying content of a page of a social networking system; receiving information about a first interaction between a non- trusted user of the social networking system and the page; inferring by a computer system a first sentiment polarity of the non-trusted user based on the received information about the first interaction, the sentiment polarity indicating a first sentiment of the non-trusted user toward the content; receiving a second interaction from a trusted user related to the content indicating a second sentiment toward the first interaction by the non-trusted user; and adjusting the first sentiment of the non-trusted user toward the content in a direction corresponding to the second sentiment indicated by the trusted user responsive to determining that the first sentiment is different from the second sentiment. 25. A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing computer program code for: identifying content of a page of a social networking system; receiving information about a first interaction between a user of the social networking system and the page; inferring by a computer system a sentiment polarity of the user based on the received information about the first interaction, the first sentiment polarity indicating a positive or negative sentiment of the user toward the content of the page; storing the inferred sentiment polarity of the user toward the content of the page; receiving a second interaction from the user related to the content; and Appeal 2018-006848 Application 14/023,136 4 associating with the second interaction the stored sentiment polarity of the user toward the content of the page. The Examiner’s rejections and cited references The Examiner rejects claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Final Act. 2. The Examiner newly rejects claims 1–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Ans. 2–9. The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 11, 12, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ameri-Yahia et al. (US 2013/0212059 A1; published Aug. 15, 2013) (“Ameri-Yahia”), Nigam et al. (US 2006/0069589 A1; published Mar. 30, 2006) (“Nigam”), and Lu et al. (US 2012/0197903 A1; published Aug. 2, 2012) (“Lu”). Final Act. 2–7. The Examiner rejects claims 4–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ameri-Yahia, Nigam, Lu, and Louis et al. (US 2013/0124191 A1; published May 16, 2013) (“Louis”). Final Act. 7–9. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ameri-Yahia, Nigam, Lu, and Alemi (US 2013/0173254 A1; published July 4, 2013). Final Act. 9–10. The Examiner rejects claims 8–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ameri-Yahia, Nigam, Lu, and Tsytsarau et al. (US 2013/0290232 A1; published Oct. 31, 2013) (“Tsytsarau”). Final Act. 10– 12. The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ameri-Yahia, Nigam, Lu, and Cai et al. (US 2010/0306123 A1; published Dec. 2, 2010) (“Cai”). Final Act. 12–13. Appeal 2018-006848 Application 14/023,136 5 The Examiner rejects claims 14, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ameri-Yahia, Nigam, Lu, Bedard et al. (US 2014/0101064 A1; published Apr. 10, 2014) (“Bedard”), and Barbosa et al. (US 2012/0101805 A1; published Apr. 26, 2012) (“Barbosa”). Final Act. 13–16. The Examiner rejects claims 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ameri-Yahia, Nigam, Lu, Bedard, Barbosa, and Yeh et al. (US 8,082,288 B1; issued Dec. 20, 2011) (“Yeh”). Final Act. 16–20. The Examiner rejects claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nigam, Lu, and Goldman (US 2014/0156451 A1; published June 5, 2014). Final Act. 20–22. PRINCIPLES OF LAW To be statutorily patentable, the subject matter of an invention must be a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or [a] . . . new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. There are implicit exceptions to the categories of patentable subject matter identified in 35 U.S.C. § 101, including: (1) laws of nature; (2) natural phenomena; and (3) abstract ideas. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). The Supreme Court has set forth a framework for distinguishing patents with claims directed to these implicit exceptions “from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Id. at 217 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). The evaluation follows a two-part analysis: (1) determine whether the claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea; and (2) if so, then determine whether any element, or combination of elements, in the Appeal 2018-006848 Application 14/023,136 6 claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the patent-ineligible concept itself. See id. at 217–18. “[A]ll inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71. We “‘must be careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims’ by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently published revised guidance on the application of the two-part analysis. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”); see also USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf (Oct. 17, 2019) (“Oct. 2019 Update”). Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (see id. at 54 (step 2A, prong one)); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see id. at 54–55 (step 2A, prong two); MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)). See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52–55. Appeal 2018-006848 Application 14/023,136 7 Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56. 35 U.S.C. § 112(B) The Examiner correctly notes that Appellant does not address the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 25. Ans. 10; see also Final Act. 2. Accordingly, we summarily affirm this rejection. 35 U.S.C. § 101 Revised Guidance step 2A, prong one In rejecting claim 1 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, the Examiner determines the claim is “directed to [the] . . . abstract idea of ‘determining sentiment polarity for users of a social networking system’, similar to ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis’ (Electric Power Group[3]).” Ans. 2. Specifically, the Examiner determines that the steps reciting the abstract idea are the steps of (1) extracting a topic from text content of a social networking page (collecting and analyzing information), (2) receiving a first interaction between a user and 3 Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal 2018-006848 Application 14/023,136 8 the page (collecting information), (3) determining a positive or negative sentiment polarity of the user towards the text content and topic (analyzing information), (4) storing the sentiment polarity of the user toward the extracted topic (analyzing information), (5) receiving a second interaction from the user related to the extracted topic (collecting information), and (6) associating with the second interaction the stored sentiment polarity (analyzing information). Id. at 3. Appellant contends the Examiner over-simplifies claim 1 “to the point where the identified abstract idea fails to account for specific requirements of the claims.” Reply Br. 4. Specifically, Appellant argues that rather than merely reciting “determining sentiment polarity for users of a social networking system,” claim 1 is “directed to a specific manner of inferring sentiment polarity for users of a social networking system based on information about the users’ interactions with the content in the social networking system, which is not an abstract idea.” Id. Appellant thus contrasts claim 1 with the patent-ineligible claims of Electric Power Group, which Appellant characterizes as merely reciting “general steps of detecting and analyzing events, as well as displaying the event analysis results.” Id. at 5. Appellant’s arguments are primarily pertinent to whether claim 1 integrates an abstract idea into a practical application and are unpersuasive with respect to the question of whether claim 1 merely recites an abstract idea. In particular, the Examiner’s determinations show that claim 1—in reciting the use of a user’s interaction with a social networking system and page to determine a sentiment of the user toward the text content of the page and to infer the user’s sentiment polarity toward a topic extracted from the text content of the page—recites an abstract idea in the form of mental Appeal 2018-006848 Application 14/023,136 9 processes. See Ans. 2–3. That is, a human can ascertain a user’s sentiment toward a text content and a sentiment polarity of the topic of the text content based on user interactions such as “commenting on page content, posting to the page, liking the page” (Spec. ¶ 4), “cross[ing] out the page, shar[ing] the page, hid[ing] the page, [or] report[ing] the page” (id. ¶ 5). Such actions are amenable to evaluation by the human mind even without the aid of a computer (e.g., an assessment of sentiment could be made in response to reviewing a print-out of content and a description of an action taken with respect to the content). Thus, apart from the additional recitations discussed below, claim 1, in reciting determination and inference steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, recites an abstract idea in the form of a mental process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion). See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52; Oct. 2019 Update 7–9. Revised Guidance step 2A, prong two As noted above, Appellant contends that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because claim 1 recites “specific requirements” that direct the claim “to a specific manner of inferring sentiment polarity for users of a social networking system based on information about the users’ interactions with the content in the social networking system.” Reply Br. 4–5. We are unpersuaded. The Specification discloses multiple techniques for inferring sentiment polarity including use of a predictive model trained via a machine learning algorithm (Spec. ¶ 6), “lexicon-based analysis or a Minutiae-based sentiment classifier” or “bag-of-words sentiment analysis” (id. ¶ 37), “a set of rules and/or heuristics” (id.), “a hybrid approach” (id. ¶ 38), and trusted user labeling (id. ¶ 60). None of these diverse approaches to making an Appeal 2018-006848 Application 14/023,136 10 inference are recited in the claim. This evinces that claim 1 fails to recite a specific manner of inferring sentiment polarity. Rather, claim 1 merely recites that the inference is based on received information about a first interaction. Thus, claim 1 generally links the use of the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea in the form of a mental process, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) to a particular technological environment (i.e., to information about a first interaction between a user of a social networking system and a page). Such linking is insufficient to integrate the underlying abstract idea into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (citing, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588–90 (1978)). We are unable to discern any other additional recitations in claim 1 that would integrate the underlying abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance step 2B The Examiner determines that the additional elements of claim 1, “when considered both individually and as an ordered combination[,] do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.” Ans. 4. In particular, the Examiner determines that the “‘computer system’ is recited at a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications” and “[t]here is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.” Id. That is, the collective functions of the additional elements merely provide for a “conventional computer implementation.” Id. Appeal 2018-006848 Application 14/023,136 11 Appellant contends the Examiner erred because: the steps of “identifying text content of a page of a social networking system,” “extracting a topic from the text content,” “determining a sentiment of the user toward the text content based on the received information about the first interaction,” “inferring by a computer system that the user has a sentiment polarity toward the extracted topic based on the received information about the first interaction, the sentiment polarity corresponding to the user’s sentiment toward the text content and indicating a positive or negative sentiment of the user toward the topic,” and “associating with the second interaction the stored sentiment polarity of the user toward the extracted topic” of claim 1 are not functions recognized by the courts to be well-understood, routine, or conventional. Reply Br. 6–7; see also id. at 8 (claim 1 recites “a specific manner of inferring sentiment polarity of users toward content in a social networking system”). Appellant’s arguments unpersuasively rely on recitations that are part of the underlying abstract idea (i.e., the mental process reflecting observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion) of claim 1. See, e.g., Ans. 3. Moreover, the Examiner’s determinations regarding the additional recitations of claim 1 are supported by the broad, generic disclosures in the Specification of technologies such as a system environment for a social networking system, a network, a conventional computer system, and a device having computer functionality. See Spec. Fig. 1, ¶¶ 16–17. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments do not show error in the Examiner’s reasonable determination that the additional recitations are insufficient to transform the underlying abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Appeal 2018-006848 Application 14/023,136 12 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–25, which Appellant argues are patent-eligible for similar reasons. See Reply Br. 2–9. 35 U.S.C. § 103 – CLAIMS 1–22, 24, AND 25 Lu teaches optimizing an objective function to provide similar sentiment polarity scores for first and second domain-aspect opinion-word pairs that have synonymous opinion-words (and to provide dissimilar polarity scores if the pairs have opinion-words that are antonyms). Lu ¶ 64. For example, for the domain-aspect of a laptop’s battery, the opinion word “large” should result in a negative sentiment polarity score to indicate that a large laptop battery is an undesirable feature. Id. ¶¶ 57, 59. The opinion- word “big” is synonymous with the opinion-word “large.” Therefore, the sentiment score for a “big laptop battery” should similarly be negative. Id. ¶ 28. In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner relies on Lu’s optimization of an objective function for calculating a sentiment polarity score to teach or suggest “associating with the second interaction the stored sentiment polarity of the user toward the extracted topic.” Final Act. 4 (citing Lu ¶ 64). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Lu’s first domain- aspect opinion word pair “corresponds to ‘inferred sentiment polarity of the user towards the extracted topic,’” while Lu’s second domain-aspect opinion word pair “corresponds to ‘a second interaction of the user related to the extracted topic.’” Ans. 11. The Examiner finds that “[o]ptimizing an objective function . . . ensures the first and second domain-aspect opinion word pairs are close to each other,” which the Examiner finds “corresponds Appeal 2018-006848 Application 14/023,136 13 to ‘associating with the second interaction the stored sentiment polarity of the user toward the extracted topic.’” Id. Appellant persuasively argues the Examiner erred by relying on Lu’s domain-aspect opinion-word pairs as corresponding to both a user’s sentiment polarity and a second interaction of the user. Reply Br. 10; see also Appeal Br. 8 (“the cited portion of Lu is not concerned with interactions by users”). As Appellant correctly notes, a sentiment polarity (e.g., how a user feels about a topic) differs from an interaction (e.g., how the user behaves with respect to a page with content related to the topic). Appellant further persuasively argues that merely outputting “similar sentiment polarity for opinion-word pairs for synonymous words does not associate a user’s sentiment polarity toward a topic with an interaction of the same user.” Reply Br. 10 (emphasis added). That is, “Lu does not suggest associating a previously determined and stored sentiment polarity of a user toward a topic with a subsequent interaction of that user toward that topic.” Appeal Br. 8. Instead, Lu merely adds “a constraint to the objective function so that similar inputs produce similar outputs.” Id. In particular, the Examiner’s findings merely show that Lu’s optimized objective function for determining a sentiment polarity score for a first domain-aspect opinion-word pair may produce a similar score when provided with a second, similar domain-aspect opinion-word pair. Ans. 11. That is, Lu teaches or suggests calculating a similar score when provided with a second domain-aspect opinion-word pair similar to a first domain- aspect opinion-word pair. Id.; Lu ¶ 64. The Examiner’s findings do not, however, show that the sentiment polarity score for the first domain-aspect Appeal 2018-006848 Application 14/023,136 14 opinion-word pair is stored and then associated with the second domain- aspect opinion-word pair. Ans. 11; Lu ¶ 64. The Examiner does not rely on the other prior art references to teach or suggest the disputed recitation of claim 1. Moreover, independent claims 11, 24, and 25 have similar recitations. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1–22, 24, and 25. 35 U.S.C. § 103 – CLAIM 23 In rejecting claim 23 as obvious, the Examiner relies on Lu’s optimization of an objective function for providing sentiment polarity scores to teach or suggest “adjusting the first sentiment of the non-trusted user toward the content in a direction corresponding to the second sentiment indicated by the trusted user responsive to determining that the first sentiment is different from the second sentiment.” Final Act. 21 (citing Lu ¶ 64); see also Ans. 14. The Examiner relies on Nigam to teach or suggest inferring the first sentiment of the non-trusted user and on Goldman to teach or suggest receiving the second sentiment indicated by the trusted user. Final Act. 21 (citing Nigam ¶ 214; Goldman ¶ 25); see also Ans. 13–14. The Examiner relies, however, exclusively on Lu to teach or suggest the claimed first sentiment adjustment “responsive to determining that the first sentiment is different from the second sentiment.” Ans. 14. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “Lu is silent with respect to adjusting a sentiment polarity for an opinion-word pair for a word in a direction toward a sentiment polarity for another opinion-word pair for a different word, if the sentiment polarities are determined to differ.” Reply Br. 12–13; see also Ans. 11. Appellant’s argument is persuasive because Lu merely optimizes based on opinion-words of domain-aspect opinion-word Appeal 2018-006848 Application 14/023,136 15 pairs being synonymous or antonymous. Lu ¶ 64. That is, adjustments of sentiment polarity in Lu are based on the use of a thesaurus containing synonym and antonym definitions. Id. ¶ 28. The Examiner’s findings do not show how Lu’s use of a thesaurus to optimize an objective function for providing sentiment polarity scores—even when combined with Nigam and Goldman—teaches or suggests adjusting a first sentiment responsive to determining that the first sentiment is different from a second sentiment. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 23. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 25 112(b) Indefiniteness 25 1–25 101 Eligibility 1–25 1–3, 11, 12, 24, 25 103 Ameri-Yahia, Nigam, Lu 1–3, 11, 12, 24, 25 4–6 103 Ameri-Yahia, Nigam, Lu, Louis 4–6 7 103 Ameri-Yahia, Nigam, Lu, Alemi 7 8–10 103 Ameri-Yahia, Nigam, Lu, Tsytsarau 8–10 13 103 Ameri-Yahia, Nigam, Lu, Cai 13 14, 21, 22 103 Ameri-Yahia, Nigam, Lu, Bedard, Barbosa 14, 21, 22 15–20 103 Ameri-Yahia, Nigam, Lu, Bedard, Barbosa, Yeh 15–20 Appeal 2018-006848 Application 14/023,136 16 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 23 103 Nigam, Lu, Goldman 23 Overall Outcome 1–25 Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection for each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner's decision to reject the claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation