DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 and 15-24 are pending.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-13 and 15-24 are rejected.
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Underlined limitations will usually indicate new elements for the purposes of this Office Action.
Statutory Review under 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-10 and 21-24 are directed towards a method and have been reviewed.
Claims 1-10 and 21-24 do not appear to be patent-eligible as they perform an abstract idea without additional elements or limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further detail is provided below in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection; however, the claims essentially append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
See relevant Examples 1-36 of the USPTO subject matter eligibility guidance (issued between December 16, 2014 through December 15, 2016), specifically Example 2. E-Commerce Outsourcing System/Generating a Composite Web Page, p6 states that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible, but the additional limitations amount to more than simply stating “apply the abstract idea on the Internet.”
The claims of the current application perform similar steps but do not have the additional limitations that would render the claimed invention significantly more than its abstract idea.
As a result, the claims are not considered patent-eligible at this time.
Claims 11-19 are directed toward a system and have been reviewed.
Claims 11-19 initially appear to be statutory, as the system includes hardware (processors) as disclosed in ¶ 0040 of the applicant’s specification, “the components of the environment 100 include hardware, software, or both; the components of the environment 100 include hardware, such as a special purpose processing device to perform a certain function or group of functions.”
However, claims 11-19 do not appear to be patent-eligible as they perform an abstract idea without additional elements or limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further detail is provided below in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection; however, the claims essentially append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
See relevant Examples 1-36 of the USPTO subject matter eligibility guidance (issued between December 16, 2014 through December 15, 2016), specifically Example 2. E-Commerce Outsourcing System/Generating a Composite Web Page, p6 states that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible, but the additional limitations amount to more than simply stating “apply the abstract idea on the Internet.”
The claims of the current application perform similar steps but do not have the additional limitations that would render the claimed invention significantly more than its abstract idea.
As a result, the claims are not considered patent-eligible at this time.
Claim 20 is directed toward an article of manufacture and has been reviewed.
Claim 20 initially appears to remain statutory, as the article of manufacture excludes signals (claim says non-transitory).
However, claim 20 does not appear to be patent-eligible as it performs an abstract idea without additional elements or limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further detail is provided below in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection; however, the claims essentially append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
See relevant Examples 1-36 of the USPTO subject matter eligibility guidance (issued between December 16, 2014 through December 15, 2016), specifically Example 2. E-Commerce Outsourcing System/Generating a Composite Web Page, p6 states that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible, but the additional limitations amount to more than simply stating “apply the abstract idea on the Internet.”
The claims of the current application perform similar steps but do not have the additional limitations that would render the claimed invention significantly more than its abstract idea.
As a result, the claim is not considered patent-eligible at this time.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed 08/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues (Remarks pp10-11) that the amended independent claims cannot practically be performed in the human mind, pointing to the “querying” step and the “automatically generating a browser notification … wherein the browser notification automatically presents the structured data with the webpage content on a display” step.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, these are considered additional computing elements analyzed in later steps and are not being analyzed as a mental process/judicial exception in this step.
Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B
Regarding claim 1, Applicant further argues (Remarks p11) that the amended independent claims are directed towards an improvement in computing, specifically as by performing the actions at runtime of the webpage, the structured data may be dynamically obtained based on the content the user is currently engaging in on the webpage and provide a browser related notification “with structured content related to the content of the webpage,” referring to ¶ 0016 of the specification.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the improvement does not appear to be fully realized or fully incorporated into the claims as they are currently structured.
The intended improvement appears to be performing an extraction (and subsequent steps) beginning at runtime of a requested webpage, allowing for [an interpreted] simultaneous (or near simultaneous) display of both the webpage and its augmentation with structured data, the desired data resulting [looking to the Remarks] from a determined webpage domain and extracted entities.
If the intended improvement is more closely tied to “query[ing] one or more datastores for structured data based on the domain, the extracted entities,” gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result is not sufficient to show improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
If the intended improvement involves timing such as the extraction being performed at runtime, which admittedly may be language to differentiate the claims over prior art of record, language is recommended to integrate the “runtime” elements (shown in the Remarks to include “when a user requests the webpage” and/or “when the webpage loads in the browser) into later steps of the claim to more effectively realize the improvement.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/19/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 11, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarara in view of Roger in further view of newly incorporated reference Ackermann in further view of Benedum.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-13, 15-19, and 21-22 are rejected at least by virtue of their dependence on rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 recites identifying a domain for a webpage, which is a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 1 also recites ranking structured data based on a number of entities in common with the one or more entities of the webpage and a temporal proximity of obtained content to an event discussed in the webpage, the ranking serving as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception of identifying a domain for a webpage and ranking structured data is not integrated into a practical application despite the following generically recited computer elements, which amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as seen below.
extracting, at runtime of the webpage, a portion of webpage content from the webpage
extracting one or more entities from the webpage content dynamically by scraping the webpage content
querying … a datastore for structured data for the webpage
obtaining the structured data for the webpage in response to the querying and the ranking;
These additional elements are mere data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
automatically generating a browser notification with the structured data, wherein the browser notification automatically presents the structured data with the webpage content on a display.
These additional elements are mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception despite the additional elements shown below:
querying, using a content application programming interface (API), a datastore for structured data for the webpage
obtaining the structured data for the webpage in response to the querying and the ranking;
This performs receiving or transmitting data over a network, which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d), specifically MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
extracting, at runtime of the webpage, a portion of webpage content from the webpage
extracting one or more entities from the webpage content dynamically by scraping the webpage content
automatically generating a browser notification with the structured data, wherein the browser notification automatically presents the structured data with the webpage content on a display.
These additional elements perform gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, which is considered to not be sufficient to show improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Claim 2:
wherein extracting the portion of the webpage, identifying the domain for the webpage, extracting the one or more entities, querying the datastore, and obtaining the structured data occurs dynamically in response to the user requesting the webpage.
Claim 2 does not add a meaningful limitation as these are merely nominal or token extra-solution components of the claim and serves only to generally link the product of nature to a further particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 3:
wherein the structured data has visually distinct display attributes from display attributes of the webpage.
Claim 3 does not add a meaningful limitation as these are merely nominal or token extra-solution components of the claim and serves only to generally link the product of nature to a further particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 4:
causing the structured data to be presented with the webpage content on a display,
wherein the structured data is presented in one or more of a browser notification on a display, an overlay of the webpage content, adjacent to the webpage content, below the webpage content, above the webpage content, or next to the webpage content.
These additional elements are mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 5:
identifying a content type of the webpage,
This identifying is a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
wherein querying the datastore for the structured data further includes using the content type of the webpage.
Claim 5 does not add a meaningful limitation as these are merely nominal or token extra-solution components of the claim and serves only to generally link the product of nature to a further particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 6:
wherein one or more pretrained machine learning models are used for extracting the portion of the webpage content, identifying the domain for the webpage, and extracting the one or more entities.
The “extracting” and “identifying” steps are from the parent/independent claim. These additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2160.05(f)).
Claim 7:
wherein the one or more pretrained machine learning models include one or more of an interactive concept learning (PICL) model, a multiclass classifier, domain specific models, or an inquiry-based learning (IBL) model.
These additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2160.05(f)).
Claim 8:
wherein extracting the one or more entities occurs by one or more of … or searching smart tags associated with the webpage content.
This additional element is mere data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
wherein extracting the one or more entities occurs by one or more of … performing string matching on the webpage content,
Performing string matching is a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 9:
wherein extracting the webpage content occurs by scraping the webpage.
This additional element is mere data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 10:
wherein the portion of the webpage content includes one or more of textual content from the webpage, articles, a title of the webpage, a brief description from the webpage, hypertext markup language (HTML) content, images, or videos.
Claim 10 does not add a meaningful limitation as these are merely nominal or token extra-solution components of the claim and serves only to generally link the product of nature to a further particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 21:
automatically obtaining structured data based on a browsing history of a user; and
This additional element is mere data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
presenting the structured data in response to the user opening the browser prior to navigation occurring to a webpage.
This additional element performs gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, which is considered to not be sufficient to show improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Claim 22:
wherein the one or more entities of the webpage content the user is engaging with on the webpage include one or more entities of the webpage content that the user is interacting with on the webpage.
Claim 22 does not add a meaningful limitation as these are merely nominal or token extra-solution components of the claim and serves only to generally link the product of nature to a further particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 23:
wherein extracting one or more entities from the webpage content dynamically by scraping the webpage content in response to the user requesting the webpage is performed after identifying the domain for the webpage using the webpage content.
This claim specifies that the second “extracting” step of the parent/independent occurs after the “identifying” step.
Claim 23 does not add a meaningful limitation as these are merely nominal or token extra-solution components of the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 24:
wherein scraping the webpage includes using the domain that was identified.
Claim 24 does not add a meaningful limitation as these are merely nominal or token extra-solution components of the claim and serves only to generally link the product of nature to a further particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 11 recites identifying a domain for a webpage, which is a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 11 also recites ranking structured data based on a number of entities in common with the one or more entities of the webpage and a temporal proximity of obtained content to an event discussed in the webpage, the ranking serving as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception of identifying a domain for a webpage and ranking structured data is not integrated into a practical application despite the following generically recited computer elements, which amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as seen below.
one or more processors;
the instructions executable by the one or more processors to:
These additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2160.05(f)).
extract, at runtime of the webpage, a portion of webpage content from the webpage
extract one or more entities from the webpage content dynamically by scraping the webpage content
query, using a content application programming interface (API), a datastore for structured data for the webpage
obtain the structured data for the webpage in response to the querying;
These additional elements are mere data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
automatically generate a browser notification with the structured data, wherein the browser notification automatically presents the structured data with the webpage content on a display.
These additional elements are mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception despite the additional elements shown below:
memory in electronic communication with the one or more processors; and
instructions stored in the memory,
These elements store and retrieve information in memory, which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
query, using a content application programming interface (API), a datastore for structured data for the webpage
obtain the structured data for the webpage in response to the querying;
This performs receiving or transmitting data over a network, which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d), specifically MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
extract, at runtime of the webpage, a portion of webpage content from the webpage
extract one or more entities from the webpage content dynamically by scraping the webpage content
automatically generate a browser notification with the structured data, wherein the browser notification automatically presents the structured data with the webpage content on a display.
These additional elements perform gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, which is considered to not be sufficient to show improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Claim 12:
to extract the portion of the webpage, identify the domain for the webpage, extract the one or more entities, query the datastore, and obtain the structured data dynamically in response to the user requesting the webpage.
Claim 12 does not add a meaningful limitation as these are merely nominal or token extra-solution components of the claim and serves only to generally link the product of nature to a further particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 13:
wherein the structured data has visually distinct display attributes from display attributes of the webpage
Claim 13 does not add a meaningful limitation as these are merely nominal or token extra-solution components of the claim and serves only to generally link the product of nature to a further particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
and the structured data is presented in one or more of an overlay of the webpage content, adjacent to the webpage content, below the webpage content, above the webpage content, or next to the webpage content.
These additional elements are mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 15:
identify a content type of the webpage,
This identifying is a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
use the content type of the webpage to query the datastore for the structured data.
Claim 5 does not add a meaningful limitation as these are merely nominal or token extra-solution components of the claim and serves only to generally link the product of nature to a further particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 16:
use one or more pretrained machine learning models for extracting the portion of the webpage content, identifying the domain for the webpage, and extracting the one or more entities.
The “extracting” and “identifying” steps are from the parent/independent claim. These additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2160.05(f)).
wherein the one or more pretrained machine learning models include one or more of an interactive concept learning (PICL) model, a multiclass classifier, domain specific models, or an inquiry-based learning (IBL) model.
These additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2160.05(f)).
Claim 17:
to extract the one or more entities by one or more of … or searching smart tags associated with the webpage content.
These additional elements are mere data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
to extract the one or more entities by one or more of … performing string matching on the webpage content,
Performing string matching is a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 18:
to extract the webpage content by scraping the webpage.
These additional elements are mere data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 19:
wherein the portion of the webpage content includes one or more of textual content from the webpage, articles, a title of the webpage, a brief description from the webpage, hypertext markup language (HTML) content, images, or videos.
Claim 19 does not add a meaningful limitation as these are merely nominal or token extra-solution components of the claim and serves only to generally link the product of nature to a further particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 20 recites identifying a domain for a webpage, which is a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 20 also recites ranking structured data based on a number of entities in common with the one or more entities of the webpage and a temporal proximity of obtained content to an event discussed in the webpage, the ranking serving as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception of identifying a domain for a webpage and ranking structured data is not integrated into a practical application despite the following generically recited computer elements, which amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as seen below.
instructions executable by a computer device,
These additional elements merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2160.05(f)).
to extract, at runtime of the webpage, a portion of webpage content from the webpage
to extract one or more entities from the webpage content dynamically by scraping the webpage content
to query, using a content application programming interface (API), a datastore for structured data for the webpage
to obtain the structured data for the webpage in response to the querying;
These additional elements are mere data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
automatically generate a browser notification with the structured data, wherein the browser notification automatically presents the structured data with the webpage content on a display.
These additional elements are mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception despite the additional elements shown below:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions
These elements store and retrieve information in memory, which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
to query, using a content application programming interface (API), a datastore for structured data for the webpage
to obtain the structured data for the webpage in response to the querying;
This performs receiving or transmitting data over a network, which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d), specifically MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
to extract, at runtime of the webpage, a portion of webpage content from the webpage
to extract one or more entities from the webpage content dynamically by scraping the webpage content
automatically generate a browser notification with the structured data, wherein the browser notification automatically presents the structured data with the webpage content on a display.
These additional elements perform gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, which is considered to not be sufficient to show improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-4, 9-10, 24; 11-13, 18-19; 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarara et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0241968 (hereinafter Tarara) in view of Roger et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0300771 (published October 18, 2018; hereinafter Roger) in further view of Ackermann et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0056131 (published February 25, 2021; hereinafter Ackermann) in further view of Benedum et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0186544 (hereinafter Benedum).
Regarding claim 1, Tarara teaches:
A method for identifying structured data for a webpage, comprising: (Tarara ¶ 0021: writing, reading, and processing comments directed to a target object, for example, a specific word, phrase, graphic, or other multimedia content, such as a sound, or video clip, that is embedded in an article, a document, and/or a web page ... a dialog selectively appears providing a list of recent comments from other users related to the target object)
Tarara teaches a webpage being requested by a user for engagement by the user; (Tarara FIG. 9, ¶ 0111: Moving to decision block 930, a determination is made as to whether a page request has been received ... the page request may be received by blog services 107 from a client device 124; ¶ 0117-0118 and ¶ 0120 show the claimed engagement: In block 936, the specified target objects may be configured as identifiable within the content as being available for associating comments ... blog services 107 configures the specified target objects in the requested web page ... At decision block 940, a determination may be made regarding whether an action has been detected from the client device. In one embodiment, the action may be detected as associated with a target object)
Tarara further teaches:
identifying a domain for the webpage using the webpage content; (Tarara ¶ 0093: if a web page may be sent to comment services 108 from blog services 107 for ad preparation, comment services 108 may analyze target objects, such as target object 406, included in the article on the web page to identify and select appropriate ads for inclusion in the web page ... For example, if the target object is a word or phrase denoting a vacation resort, the ad database may associate hotels, airlines, and other services that are related to vacation resorts, with the target object)
extracting one or more entities from the webpage content dynamically in response to the user requesting the webpage; (Tarara FIGs. 5-6, ¶ 0090: A request from client device 124 to blog services 107 may be generated in at least two circumstances. A request may be generated when a user initially requests a web page; FIG. 9, ¶ 0111: Moving to decision block 930, a determination is made as to whether a page request has been received ... If a page request is determined to have been received, processing proceeds to block 932; ¶ 0118 shows the claimed extracting of entities: In one embodiment at block 936 [occurring after block 930 above], configuring each target object may also comprise analyzing the target objects or target object IDs to retrieve a set of ads from a data store 360 for each of the target objects)
querying a datastore for structured data for the webpage using … the one or more entities of the webpage content the user is engaging with on the webpage; (Tarara FIGs. 5-6, ¶ 0096: When the user focuses on or selects a target object in the web page on client device 124, for example, by locating a cursor over the target object, a callback function may be executed on client device 124 that sends a request packet to blog services 107 in the background, without any action on the part of the user. The request packet may cause blog services 107 to retrieve and return micro-comments associated with the target object to client device 124)
obtaining the structured data for the webpage in response to the querying; and (Tarara FIGs. 5-6, ¶ 0096: ...a callback function may be executed on client device 124 that sends a request packet to blog services 107 in the background, without any action on the part of the user. The request packet may cause blog services 107 to retrieve and return micro-comments associated with the target object to client device 124; see also FIG. 9, ¶ 0121: At block 942, one or more comments associated with the action and the identifiable target object may be retrieved and transmitted to the client device at which the action was detected)
after obtaining the structured data for the webpage in response to the querying … automatically generating a browser notification with the structured data, wherein the browser notification automatically presents the structured data with the webpage content on a display. (Tarara ¶ 0090: When a micro-comment request is received from client device 124, comment processor 502 may retrieve micro-comments associated with the selected target object and update the displayed web page with data and scripts configured to enable further display of the micro-comments to the user of client device 124 and/or other users ... the data and scripts for the micro-comments are provided to the client device ... the entire web page, including the micro-comment data and scripts may be returned to the client device 124; see also Tarara FIG. 9, ¶ 0121: At block 942, one or more comments associated with the action and the identifiable target object may be retrieved and transmitted to the client device at which the action was detected, enabling selective display of the one or more comments at the client device; see also Tarara FIG. 10, FIG. 7, ¶ 0131: At block 1045, one or more comments are received and displayed at the client device ... an entire web page, including data for the one or more comments is received ... the comment data is received for inclusion in the web page received and displayed at block 1030. The comments may be associated with a target object that was subject of the action performed in decision block 1040. For example, client device 124 may display at least one comment in a dialog box 702 such as further illustrated in FIG. 7 ... the action performed at block 1040 may enable display of the one or more comments in a separate window over a portion of the content received in the requested web page ... the one or more comments may be displayed within a summary dialog box, a selection of which may enable another display of the received comment to be displayed that provides additional information about the received comment and a second comment)
Tarara does not expressly disclose:
extracting, at runtime of the webpage, a portion of webpage content from the webpage in response to the webpage being requested…
extracting one or more entities from the webpage content dynamically by scraping the webpage content in response to the user requesting the webpage;
querying, using a content application programming interface (API), a datastore … using the domain for the webpage…
ranking the structured data based on a number of entities in common with the one or more entities of the webpage and a temporal proximity of obtained content to an event discussed in the webpage;
obtaining the structured data for the webpage in response to the querying and the ranking;
However, Roger addresses this by teaching the following:
extracting, at runtime of the webpage, a portion of webpage content from the webpage in response to the webpage being requested by a user… (Roger FIG. 1A, ¶ 0013-0014, see first ¶ 0013: The illustrative method 100 begins at block 102, where the client device loads a publisher's page and executes code included within the page; see then ¶ 0014: at block 104, the code of the page (or code received from a server subsequent to the initial page load as a result of executing the initial code) causes the browser to locate one or more images (or videos or other page objects or media items, depending on the embodiment) within the page. The code may, for example, search the page for images or other media items that are potentially suitable for placing an advertisement over or within)
querying a datastore for … data for the webpage using the domain for the webpage... (Roger FIG. 1A, ¶ 0014-0016, see ¶ 0014: Accordingly, at block 106, the code may then cause the browser to send information regarding one or more of the located images (e.g., potentially suitable images for advertisement placement), videos or other objects or elements on the page to a server, such as a server operated by an advertisement service that handles advertisements for a potentially large number of different advertisers. The sent information may include information regarding the page content, the publisher, and each image (and/or video or other media item considered an object of interest in a given embodiment) identified on the page as potentially suitable for advertisement placement or other content overlay. The data sent with respect to each image may include, for example, image metadata, image dimensions, image name, the location of the image in the page, and/or other information)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use known techniques to use determining of target items within web pages as in Roger to improve similar techniques in Tarara involving determining target items within web pages.
In addition, both of the references (Tarara and Roger) disclose features that are directed to analogous art, and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as identifying content within pages.
Motivation to do so would be to improve the functioning of Tarara detecting entities for retrieval of data with the ability in similar reference Roger also using detected target items to retrieve data but with the added emphasis on image extraction and without user intervention. Motivation to do so would also be the teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Roger to provide improved overlay content (¶ 0035).
Tarara in view of Roger does not expressly disclose:
extracting one or more entities from the webpage content dynamically by scraping the webpage content in response to the user requesting the webpage;
querying, using a content application programming interface (API), a datastore…
ranking the structured data based on a number of entities in common with the one or more entities of the webpage and a temporal proximity of obtained content to an event discussed in the webpage;
obtaining the structured data for the webpage in response to the querying and the ranking;
However, Ackermann teaches:
ranking the structured data based on a number of entities in common with the one or more entities of the webpage… (Ackermann shows ranking of structured data in ¶ 0084-0085: The event clusters (or events) may then be ranked with respect to interest (and/or value) and/or relevance; Ackermann shows common entities in ¶ 0033: A plurality of events referenced in a corpus are identified. Each of the plurality of events is associated with an entity. A score is calculated for each of the plurality of events based on at least one of a number of references to the respective event within the corpus and information associated with a user; see also Ackermann FIG. 6, ¶ 0095-0096: a search for references to a target entity within a corpus (e.g., one or more documents) ... A plurality of events (or event clusters) referenced in a corpus are identified (step 604). Each of the plurality of events may be associated with an entity; Ackermann shows this involving a webpage in ¶ 0078: The corpus 406 may include one or more of any type of suitable document, file, database, etc., such as unstructured documents, web sites)
Ackermann also teaches ranking the structured data based on temporal proximity… (Ackermann ¶ 0082-0084: The event clusters (or events) may then be ranked with respect to interest (and/or value) and/or relevance ... a score (e.g., a numerical number) is calculated for each of the event clusters, which may be based on ... the relevance of the event to the particular user(s) (e.g., based on information associated with the user, user-defined labels, etc.); see labels can be temporal in nature in at least Ackermann FIG. 5, ¶ 0093: Of particular interest in FIG. 5 are date labels 504-510, which indicate (or list) the dates or event times (e.g., years) of events within the timeline 500)
Ackermann teaches an event discussed in the webpage. (Ackermann shows an event discussed in a page in ¶ 0087-0089: The process may involve identifying a representative set of dates (or single time/date) for each event based on ... explicit date mentions (or references) in the appropriate passages or portions of the documents; see this also in Ackermann FIG. 6, ¶ 0098: The information associated with the document may include at least ... a reference to (e.g., an explicit mention of) a date within the document; see again Ackermann addressing a webpage in at least ¶ 0078: The corpus 406 may include one or more of any type of suitable document, file, database, etc., such as unstructured documents, web sites)
obtaining the structured data for the webpage in response to the querying and the ranking; (Ackermann FIG. 4, ¶ 0091: generate a timeline (and/or a representation of a timeline) for the entity associated with the bin, which illustrates (or indicates) events that are (at least relatively) relevant to the specific user(s). For each event, the timelines includes the date (or time) of the events, along the summary (or description) of the events, and perhaps the labels (e.g., user-defined labels) identified in passages associated with that event (which may be considered to be part of the summary/description) ... The timeline may then be provided to the user, perhaps in conjunction with the presentation of the results for the entity search (e.g., the bin(s)))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the web page augmentation of Tarara as modified with the scoring techniques of Ackermann.
In addition, both of the references (Tarara as modified and Ackermann) disclose features that are directed to analogous art, and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as identifying content within pages.
Motivation to do so would be to improve the functioning of Tarara as modified retrieving and displaying desired content with the functioning of Ackermann also retrieving and displaying desired content but with the improvement of its corpus document analysis techniques.
Motivation to do so would also be the teaching, suggestion, or motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to improve user entity search experiences as seen in Ackermann ¶ 0003-0004.
Tarara in view of Roger and this embodiment of Ackermann does not expressly disclose:
extracting one or more entities from the webpage content dynamically by scraping the webpage content in response to the user requesting the webpage;
querying, using a content application programming interface (API), a datastore…
obtaining the structured data for the webpage in response to the querying and the ranking;
Tarara in view of Roger and this embodiment of Ackermann further does not expressly disclose a temporal proximity … to an event…
However, another embodiment of Ackermann teaches a temporal proximity to an event. (Ackermann ¶ 0089-0090: a date or time (i.e., a date/time of occurrence) is determined (or identified) for each of the (selected) event clusters (or events), perhaps based on information associated with at least one reference to the respective event within the corpus (or respective document(s)). The process may involve identifying a representative set of dates (or single time/date) for each event based on, for example, the dates on which the respective passages (and/or documents) were published (e.g., as indicated within the document and/or metadata associated with the document) and/or explicit date mentions (or references) in the appropriate passages or portions of the documents ... In embodiments that utilize the earliest date in an identified set of dates, such may be utilized based on the reasoning that events are typically reported closely to the time at which they occur ... Since the event date is necessarily closest to the date of its first occurrence in reporting/documents, the earliest date from all of the passages in the event cluster may be selected as the event date)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the date and time-based ranking of Tarara as modified by at least Ackermann with the date comparison and selection techniques of Ackermann.
Motivation to do so would be to combine the functioning of Tarara as modified by at least Ackermann retrieving and ranking desired content based on factors such as time/date with the functioning of Ackermann choosing one of many reported dates/times closest to the actual occurrence date/time to yield predictable results.
Tarara in view of Roger and Ackermann does not expressly disclose:
extracting one or more entities from the webpage content dynamically by scraping the webpage content in response to the user requesting the webpage;
querying, using a content application programming interface (API), a datastore…
However, Benedum addresses this by teaching:
extracting one or more entities from the webpage content dynamically by scraping the webpage content in response to the user requesting the webpage; (Benedum FIG. 2, ¶ 0020-0022: At step 205, the user loads the website into the user's browser, which causes the interface code to execute and activate the interface … At step 225, the web server 100 may perform SEO analysis of one or more of the web pages. In the illustrated method and other methods according to this disclosure, SEO analysis may include identifying one or more valuable keywords and incorporating the keywords into the user's website ... Preferably, such methodologies are partially or fully automated, such as by scraping information from the source code of the web pages and performing keyword identification on the information)
querying, using a content application programming interface (API), a datastore… (Benedum ¶ 0016: The web server 100 may be configured to communicate electronically with one or more data stores in order to retrieve information from the data stores. The electronic communication may be over the Internet using any suitable electronic communication medium, communication protocol, and computer software including, without limitation: ...application programming interfaces)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use known techniques to use determining of target items within web pages as in Benedum to improve similar techniques in Tarara as modified involving determining target items within web pages.
In addition, both of the references (Tarara as modified and Benedum) disclose features that are directed to analogous art, and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as identifying content within pages.
Motivation to do so would be to improve the functioning of Tarara as modified detecting entities for retrieval of data with the ability in similar reference Benedum also using detected target items to retrieve data but with the added emphasis on partial or full automation techniques to derive data pertinent to the user’s website (Benedum ¶ 0022). Motivation to do so would also be the teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Benedum to advantageously create website modifications for any website (Benedum ¶ 0006).
Regarding claim 11, Tarara teaches:
A system, comprising: one or more processors; memory in electronic communication with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the memory, the instructions executable by the one or more processors to: (Tarara ¶ 0136: each block of the flowchart illustration, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustration, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These program instructions may be provided to a processor to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute on the processor, create means for implementing the actions specified in the flowchart block or blocks; see also ¶ 0062: Mass memory 230 ill