DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the RCE filed 18 February 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8–13, 21, 22, 30, 32, and 34–38 are pending. Claims 1, 12, and 13 are independent.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8–13, 21, 22, 30, 32, and 34–38 are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see remarks, filed 18 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 8–13, 21, 22, 30, 32, and 34 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Subramanya et al.
Claim Rejections—35 U.S.C. § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 13, 21, 22, 32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bandaru et al. (US 9,087,035 B1) [hereinafter Bandaru] in view of Koren et al. (US 2017/0344656 A1) [hereinafter Koren] and Sun et al. (US 8,515,937 B1) [hereinafter Sun], further in view of Subramanya (US 2019/0043081 A1) [hereinafter Subramanya].
Regarding independent claim 1, Bandaru discloses [a] website building system configured for analyzing structural attributes of websites, the website building system comprising: Generating a web site based on content, a template, and recommendations (Bandaru, col. 1 ll. 40–65). one or more website building databases storing at least a plurality of website building elements comprising […]; A data repository stores website elements (Bandaru, col. 5 ll. 15–25). Website elements may be text, images, content, links, etc. (Bandaru, col. 12 ll. 40–45). […] one or more processors configured to execute software instructions to perform operations for analyzing the structural attributes of websites and developing recommendations for the websites, the operations comprising: Computer systems including processors and software instructions (Bandaru, col. 19 ll. 40–65). […] hosting a first website, the first website being built based on the selected vertical-defined website building element subset; Websites are stored on web servers (Bandaru, col. 3 ll. 45–60); websites are formed from the website elements, templates, and recommendations from the website analytics application (Bandaru, col. 12 ll. 40–65). identifying a plurality of structural attributes of the first website; Website analytics data is obtained from the user’s website and other websites (Bandaru, col. 5 ll. 5–10). Website analytics data may include the layout, organization, and links [structural attributes] (Bandaru, col. 5 ll. 35–40). The data may be obtained in various ways (Bandaru, col. 8 ll. 15–35). […] tracking performance of the first website in comparison to other websites over a period of time; The performance analysis engine compares the performance of the user website with the performance of other websites; the performance analysis engine may track changes in the performance of the user website and the other websites (Bandaru, col. 11 ll. 15–35). identifying one or more recommended changes to the first website, wherein the one or more recommended changes comprises a recommended change […], the one or more recommended changes identified based on at least the tracked performance of the first website in comparison to other websites over the period of time […]; and A conversion improvement engine analyzes web analytics data for other websites, e.g., websites A through N, and finds correlations between website elements and changes in website metrics, such as an update to a certain element causing an increased conversion rate (Bandaru, col. 9 ll. 15–35). The website elements may include website content, layout, organization, pages, links, text, website templates, add-ons, or color [structural attributes] (Bandaru, col. 5 ll. 30–40). A traffic improvement engine performs a similar analysis of the other websites to determine changes that result in increased visits (Bandaru, col. 9 ll. 40–60). The recommendation generation engine uses the results of the conversion improvement and traffic improvement engines to generate recommendations for the user (Bandaru, col. 10 ll. 25–35). Updated recommendations may be generated based on updated web analytics data collected after creation of the site (Bandaru, col. 10 ll. 35–45). in response to identifying the one or more recommended changes, automatically providing a notification to an owner of the first website, the notification indicating the one or more recommended changes including the recommended change to the one or more advertisements. The website design user interface may display the recommendations and updated recommendations to the user and allow the user to choose which recommendations to follow (Bandaru, col. 10 ll. 50–65). The system may be notified of the performance of the website by email (Bandaru, col. 15 ll. 30–40).
Bandaru teaches website design rules, building elements, and templates, but does not expressly teach rules linked to elements, and elements linked to verticals. However, Koren teaches: [a plurality of website building elements] comprising vertical-defined website building element subsets A content management system having content tagged with attributes such as industry/family (Koren, ¶ 298). receiving a selected vertical of a plurality of verticals, wherein the selected vertical correlates to a selected vertical-defined website building element subset of the vertical-defined website building element subsets; The user specifies a business family/industry [vertical] (Koren, ¶¶ 281–292). Businesses within the same family may share site structures [website design rules] and field values, preset page sections, etc. [website building element subsets] (Koren, ¶¶ 171, 273, 286, 287, 290).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Koren with those of Bandaru. One would have been motivated to do so in order to produce higher quality websites by incorporating content and structure specific to particular businesses or industries (Koren, ¶¶ 92–93).
Bandaru/Koren teaches recommending changes to content of a website, e.g., suggesting keywords to improve search engine ranking (Bandaru, col. 18 ll. 20–30), but does not expressly teach metadata that is stored in a database in association with a website. However, Sun teaches: [identifying a recommended change] to one or more advertisements of the first website, [the one or more recommended changes identified based on at least the tracked performance of the first website in comparison to other websites over the period of time] A web analytics system including search engine optimization, based on an analysis of other websites (Sun, col. 4 ll. 5–40). The web analytics system identifies related sites, such as those of competitors, and identifies search queries/keywords1 that are driving traffic thereto, and informs webmasters of the keywords (Sun, col. 36 ll. 5–20). The search keywords may be <meta> tag [metadata] keywords (Sun, col. 35 ll. 25–30). A data store [database] may be populated with associations between search queries/keywords and websites (Sun, col. 23 ll. 50–60). Results of a keyword analysis may be stored in a data store [database] (Sun, col. 36 ll. 1–10). [in response to identifying the recommended change] to the one or more search engine optimization metadata of the first website [based on at least the tracked performance of the first website in comparison to other websites over the period of time, automatically providing a notification to an owner of the first website, the notification indicating the recommended change to the search engine optimization metadata] The system provides keyword recommendations in a report to a user (Sun, col. 14 ll. 45–65).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bandaru/Koren with those of Sun. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the search engine ranking of the website and drive more traffic to the website (Sun, col. 3 ll. 30–55).
Bandaru/Koren/Sun teaches optimizing a web site based on advertising (Bandaru, col. 15 ll. 1–5) but does not expressly teach using data from an external ad platform. However, Subramanya teaches: one or more interfaces configured to communicate with one or more external advertising platforms and to receive advertiser-native data from the one or more external advertising platforms, the advertiser-native data including at least one of demographic data, impression data, click data, action data, post data, or cookie data; and A system for predicting and measuring the impact of advertisements on performance metrics of a web page or web site (Subramanya, ¶¶ 3–4). The system may use ads from an external service such as Google AdSense (Subramanya, ¶ 19). Data collected may include ad revenue, revenue per click, revenue per impression, etc. (Subramanya, ¶ 68). receiving, from at least one external advertising platform, advertiser-native data associated with an advertising campaign for the first website; The ad attribute module collects ad attribute values for the ads (Subramanya, ¶ 89). [the one or more recommended changes identified based on at least the tracked performance of the first website in comparison to other websites over the period of time] and the advertiser-native data associated with an advertising campaign for the first website The ad service module coordinate with the external ad service(s) to produce an impact report regarding potential ad content or ad configurations (Subramanya, ¶ 89).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bandaru/Koren/Sun with those of Subramanya. One would have been motivated to do so in order to more accurately measure the impact of advertisements, advertisement placement, etc. on the performance of the web site (Subramanya, ¶¶ 4, 14).
Regarding dependent claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya further teaches: wherein the plurality of structural attributes of the first website includes at least one of: a landing page, a contact page, a feedback page, a questions page, a press release page, a real-time communications interface, fillable form content, shopping cart data, text content, image content, or video content. The website elements may include text and images (Bandaru, col. 12 ll. 40–45).
Regarding dependent claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya further teaches: wherein the plurality of structural attributes of the first website includes at least one of: backend code, backend site profile information, a backend database, calendar data, schedule data, catalog data, or search engine optimization metadata or keywords. The website may include keywords that affect search engine ranking (Bandaru, col. 18 ll. 10–40).
Regarding dependent claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya further teaches: wherein the one or more recommended changes includes adding, removing, or modifying content to the first website. The recommendation may be to add text, such as keywords, remove large images, or modify the size of buttons (Bandaru, col. 18 ll. 10–40).
Regarding dependent claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya further teaches: wherein the one or more recommended changes are identified based on application of an artificial intelligence algorithm configured to predict behaviors of a website developer, optimize content, predict results regarding modification of the content, and predict a cost to promote the first website. A machine learning model [AI algorithm] is generated and trained (Subramanya, ¶ 22). The model predicts outcomes of modifications made to the advertisements on the web page (Subramanya, ¶ 25). The system may determine a tradeoff [cost] of placing advertisements, etc. (Subramanya, ¶ 48).
Regarding independent claim 12, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1, and therefore is rejected for the same reasons. Bandaru further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium at col. 19 ll. 60–65.
Regarding independent claim 13, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1, and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding dependent claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya further teaches: wherein the first website includes website content associated with the subset of the vertical-defined website building elements, wherein the website content is information presented in the subset of the vertical-defined website building elements and information to describe presentation of the subset of the vertical-defined website building elements. The website is built from templates that include sections, e.g. headers, footers, navigation, body, etc., the organization/number of pages, and style characteristics [information describing the presentation] (Bandaru, col. 6 ll. 45–50) and content such as text and images placed into the template (Bandaru, col. 12 ll. 40–65).
Regarding dependent claim 22, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya further teaches: wherein the website content includes at least one of: textual elements, graphical elements, video elements, layout formats, color formats, background formats, or the plurality of structural attributes. The website may include text, images, layouts, colors, backgrounds, page hierarchy, etc. (Bandaru, col. 6 ll. 45–55, col. 12 ll. 40–65, col. 15 ll. 40–50).
Regarding dependent claim 32, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya further teaches: wherein the notification comprises at least one of a visual prompt or a selectable prompt. The website design user interface may display the recommendations and allow the user to choose [select] which recommendations to follow (Bandaru, col. 10 ll. 50–65). The recommendations may be displayed, e.g., in a panel next to the website (Bandaru, col. 17 l. 50 to col. 18 l. 10).
Regarding dependent claim 34, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya further teaches: wherein the notification comprises an email notification and is provided via a web service. The web analytics application may include web applications [web services] on a server (Bandaru, col. 4 ll. 50–65).
Claims 11, 30, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bandaru in view of Koren, Sun, and Subramanya, further in view of Al-Sallami et al. (US 2020/0183553 A1) [hereinafter Al-Sallami].
Regarding dependent claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya teaches generating recommended changes, but does not expressly teach doing so for a time period or event. However, Al-Sallami teaches: wherein the one or more recommended changes are identified based on at least one of a time period or event. The recommendation module may generate recommendations, e.g., to include content associated with particular times, days, or seasons (Al-Sallami, ¶¶ 77, 137).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya with those of Al-Sallami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase sales by presenting content relevant to a particular time, season, etc. (Al-Sallami, ¶ 77).
Regarding dependent claim 30, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya teaches generating web sites and predicting outcomes regarding ads using machine learning, but does not expressly teach developing the recommended change using machine learning. However, Al-Sallami teaches: developing the recommended change to the one or more structural attributes of the first website using a machine learning model with the plurality of structural attributes of the first website and the vertical associated with the first website as input. Recommendations for creating or editing web pages are generated, including structure and design aspects, as well as the merchant category classification or vertical (Al-Sallami, ¶¶ 26, 27, 48, 74 81, 92–95). The recommendations may be generated using machine learning models, such as neural networks (Al-Sallami, ¶¶ 92, 108, 117, 254).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya with those of Al-Sallami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the user to create/edit web pages/sites of higher quality, more easily (Al-Sallami, ¶¶ 31–35).
Regarding dependent claim 38, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated and Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Al-Sallami further teaches: wherein the one or more recommended changes based on the at least one of the date or the time period are based on at least one of a holiday or seasonality. The recommendation module may generate recommendations to include content associated with particular seasons or holidays (Al-Sallami, ¶¶ 77, 137).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bandaru in view of Koren, Sun, and Subramanya, further in view of Sampath-Kumar et al. (US 2015/0261874 A1) [hereinafter Sampath-Kumar].
Regarding dependent claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya teaches recommending additions to existing pages, but does not expressly teach adding a new page to an existing site. However, Sampath-Kumar teaches: wherein the one or more recommended changes includes adding a web page to the first website. An optimization server determines that a content gap exists on a web page, and generates a new page (Sampath-Kumar, ¶ 60). The page may be presented to the operator of the website for their approval (Sampath-Kumar, ¶ 64).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sampath-Kumar with those of Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase traffic to the website (Sampath-Kumar, ¶¶ 25, 72, 73).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bandaru in view of Koren, Sun, and Subramanya, further in view of Torres et al. (US 2019/0108234 A1) [hereinafter Torres].
Regarding dependent claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanyateaches recommending changes to a website, but does not expressly teach recommending addition of a “communications interface”2. However, Torres teaches: wherein the one or more recommended changes includes adding a communications interface to the first website. A widget recommendation system recommends widgets to add to a web page, such as a “contact us” widget, group chat widget, email widget, etc. [communications interfaces] (Torres, ¶ 13). The recommendation is based on increasing user engagement with the website (Torres, ¶ 15).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Torres with those of Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya. One would have been motivated to do so in order to further improve user engagement with the website (Torres, ¶ 4).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bandaru in view of Koren, Sun, and Subramanya, further in view of Wunderlich (US 2009/0138589 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 35, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya teaches generating a notification, but does not expressly teach doing so based on a threshold. However, Wunderlich teaches: wherein the notification is transmitted in response to meeting a threshold requirement. A system for optimizing the performance of web sites (Wunderlich, ¶ 2). Notifications may be generated in response to web site performance matching a performance threshold during continuous monitoring (Wunderlich, ¶ 14).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya with those of Wunderlich. Doing so would have been a matter of simple substitution of one known element [the notifications of Bandaru] for another [the threshold-based notifications of Wunderlich] to obtain predictable results [a system for monitoring the performance of a web site wherein notifications are made based on performance meeting a threshold].
Claims 36 and 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bandaru in view of Koren, Sun, and Subramanya, further in view of Datar et al. (US 2007/0239530 A1) [hereinafter Datar].
Regarding dependent claim 36, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya teaches generating web sites, but does not expressly teach generating promo content. However, Datar teaches: wherein the operations further comprise: generating promotional content based on the first website; and Advertisements are automatically generated based on a web site (Datar, ¶ 10). providing the promotional content to one or more external platforms. The ads may be served to a host or affiliate site [external platform] (Datar, ¶ 28).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya with those of Datar. One would have been motivated to do so in order to more easily generate advertisements targeted to specific products/services on the web site (Datar, ¶¶ 4–8).
Regarding dependent claim 37, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya teaches generating web sites, but does not expressly teach generating non-web content. However, Datar teaches: wherein the operations further comprise: generating, based on at least the identified plurality of structural attributes of the first website and the selected vertical, a non-website advertisement format for promoting the first website externally from the website building system, wherein the non-website advertisement format comprises at least one of an influencer-driven promotion, a television advertisement, an augmented-reality promotion, a virtual-reality promotion, a digital billboard promotion, an in-vehicle display promotion, or a video-game platform promotion; and An advertisement is generated for web pages of a web site; the advertisements may be presented with online contents, such as online games [video-game platform promotion], or offline content such as a billboard [digital billboard promotion] (Datar, ¶ 34). providing the non-website advertisement format to a third party system. [Datar does not expressly teach sending the ad to “offline” properties, but displaying such an ad would necessarily require that the information for printing/displaying the ad be sent to, e.g., the billboard owner.]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bandaru/Koren/Sun/Subramanya with those of Datar. One would have been motivated to do so in order to more easily generate advertisements targeted to specific products/services on the web site (Datar, ¶¶ 4–8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler Schallhorn whose telephone number is (571)270-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. (ET).
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, Tamara Kyle can be reached on 571-272-4241. 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 the USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Tyler Schallhorn/Examiner, Art Unit 2144
/TAMARA T KYLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2144
1 Applicant defines “search engine optimization [meta]data” as including keywords; see e.g., specification paras. 33 or 214.
2 Examiner interprets “communications interface” based on e.g., specification para. 304.
Prosecution Insights