DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 2/6/2026.
Claims 1-23, 25 and 26 are pending. Claims 1 and 14 are currently amended.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
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, 3-9, 11, 14, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alon, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0143655 (“Alon”), in view of Eggleston, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2015/0161649 (“Eggleston”) and in view of Michaeli, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0066151 (“Michaeli”).
Alon teaches a system and method for adjusting displayed content based on user behavior. With regard to Claim 1, Alon teaches a system for personalization of digital displayed media comprising:
one or more processing modules; and one or more non-transitory storage modules storing computing instructions configured to run on the one or more processing modules ([0048] describes a user navigating to a website using a communication device) and perform acts of:
tracking, for a visit by a user to a first channel of two or more channels, one or more user conditions ([0048] describes that a visitor navigating a website is tracked; [0059] describes a wide variety of checks and identifications tracked for users, including clicks, visit, user behavior, and many others);
applying the one or more conditions to a personalization logic ([0059] describes that a classification process finds correlation between different parameters which characterize the profile and its behavior) to:
identify one or more user segments for the user based on the one or more user conditions ([0059] teaches that the classification process identifies groups of visitors whose characteristics indicate a common interest or behavior), and
select an experience based at least in part on the one or more user segments ([0075] describes that content is selected to replace or add to existing content according to the clustering that was performed).
Alon teaches executing, on a webserver, the personalization logic to: facilitate display of personalized content on a visited channel based at least in part on the selected experience; changing standard content for a predefined region based on the selected experience, and changing the predefined region. Alon teaches at [0074] that the system can access a returning user, and can run the clustering algorithm to determine the content for the user. [0075] describes that the content can then be personalized, where the region is changed by parsing the webpage to specify the part of the webpage where custom content is to replace existing content.
Alon does not teach executing personalization logic in response to the user visiting a second channel of the two or more channels; wherein: the selected experience causes the first channel to be consistent with the second channel, and the first channel and the second channel each comprise a different one of: a website channel; and a non-website channel comprising an application.
Eggleston teaches at [0055] that a centralized system can receive a request from any of a website and an application when a user accesses either. [0061] describes that in responding to the content request, the system uses the profile to generate customized content items that are integrated or embedded into the website or application. As the content is selected using the same profile in both channels, the selected experience in the form of content will be inserted in a same manner, as it is selected and displayed to the user based on the same criteria present in the user profile.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Alon, to use the customization processes described therein across multiple channels as described in Eggleston. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve user experience both by giving users more control over personalized content by using a centrally stored user profile, as well as by enabling customized content to be integrated into both websites and applications and thereby tailoring additional content consumed by users to the users’ individual content preferences.
Alon also does not teach selecting, from a plurality of variations of a predefined region, a variation of the plurality of variations corresponding to the selected experience, wherein each variation of the plurality of variations is tied to a different experience, and changing content for the predefined region to the selected variation.
Michaeli teaches at [0077]-[0078] that sequential adjustments of content can define a set of variants of the content, one or more of which can be assigned to different clusters of users. A single content variation is selected from among the set of content variations assigned to a cluster for a target entity accessing the content. [0125] describes that the target entity can be a target user, and [0127] describes that the content variations can pertain to a content of a website as well as content of an application.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Alon to include the content variant selection process described in Michaeli. Michaeli describes a system that uses content variants to determine and subsequently serve the most effective content to end users. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Michaeli with Alon and Eggleston, to improve system functioning by enabling content testing and the serving of the most effective content variants to users.
Claim 14 recites a method carried out by the system of Claim 1, and the claim is similarly rejected as obvious.
With regard to Claim 3, Alon teaches inserting a tracking code in a webpage of the website channel, wherein the tracking code comprises common code, account specific logic, and user specific data, the tracking code tracks user activity on the webpage of the website channel, and the common code applies to two or more accounts and the account specific logic comprises instructions for updating content for an account of the two or more accounts. [0035]-[0036] describe an application executing which adjusts content of webpages for a plurality of users accessing a page, where the content is adjusted personally for each of the users. [0037] describes that the application includes a module which generates a profile and stores the profile in a database.
Claim 16 recites a method carried out by the system of Claim 3, and the claim is similarly rejected as obvious.
With regard to Claim 4, Alon teaches that the one or more user segments comprise a grouping of user identities having at least one shared user condition. [0059] describes a number of conditions regarding users which are used to cluster users.
Claim 17 recites a method carried out by the system of Claim 4, and the claim is similarly rejected as obvious.
With regard to Claim 5, Eggleston teaches updating the one or more user segments in response to a change in a qualifying user condition of the one or more user segments; and selecting the experience based at least in part on the updated one or more user segments. [0048]-[0049] describes that the system receives continual updates to user preferences based on user interactions in applications and websites. [0050] describes that preferences can be represented as categories, where each category has an associated count of a number of times a user activity is identified related to the category.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Alon and Michaeli, to use the customization processes described therein across multiple channels as described in Eggleston. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve user experience both by giving users more control over personalized content by using a centrally stored user profile, as well as by enabling customized content to be integrated into both websites and applications and thereby tailoring additional content consumed by users to the users’ individual content preferences.
Claim 18 recites a method carried out by the system of Claim 5, and the claim is similarly rejected as obvious.
With regard to Claim 6, Eggleston teaches that updating to the one or more user segments comprises: tracking the user through a different channel of the two or more channels; and compiling a global user identity for the user. [0048] describes that the user activity in applications and websites are stored in the common profile. [0022] describes that this profile is available to websites and applications that use the system, i.e. is a global profile accessible to virtually any entity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Alon and Michaeli, to use the customization processes described therein across multiple channels as described in Eggleston. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve user experience both by giving users more control over personalized content by using a centrally stored user profile, as well as by enabling customized content to be integrated into both websites and applications and thereby tailoring additional content consumed by users to the users’ individual content preferences.
Claim 19 recites a method carried out by the system of Claim 6, and the claim is similarly rejected as obvious.
With regard to Claim 7, Alon teaches accessing a lookup table comprising a third party identifier; and matching the third party identifier with a user identity. [0048] describes that third-party identifiers such as organizations and identifiers related to search activity can be identified and associated with a user for the purpose of personalization.
Claim 20 recites a method carried out by the system of Claim 7, and the claim is similarly rejected as obvious.
With regard to Claim 8, Alon teaches determining that a first user identity comprises an identifier that has previously been referenced by a second user identity within a same account; and merging the first user identity and the second user identity in response to determining a match between the identifier of the first user identity and the second user identity. [0057]-[0058] describe that tracking can be used to identify user contact details via other communication parties, as well as logins to other social networking sites. These details are then used as part of the personalization for the user.
Claim 21 recites a method carried out by the system of Claim 8, and the claim is similarly rejected as obvious.
With regard to Claim 9, Alon, in view of Eggleston teaches that a change to the personalization logic is consistent across the two or more channels after the first user identity and the second user identity have been merged. Alon teaches at [0058]-[0059] that external profile details can be used by the tracking component for the purpose of personalizing site content. Eggleston teaches at [0017] that the profile accesses preference information from other accounts a user has. [0054] describes that a personalization module runs on the profile server, ensuring consistent personalization across platforms.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Alon and Michaeli, to use the customization processes described therein across multiple channels as described in Eggleston. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve user experience both by giving users more control over personalized content by using a centrally stored user profile, as well as by enabling customized content to be integrated into both websites and applications and thereby tailoring additional content consumed by users to the users’ individual content preferences.
Claim 22 recites a method carried out by the system of Claim 9, and the claim is similarly rejected as obvious.
With regard to Claim 11, Alon teaches that the one or more processing modules are located in an edge node. Fig. 1 shows that the application is accessed by a user communication device directly through a network connection.
Claims 2, 12, 13, 15, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alon, in view of Eggleston, in view of Michaeli, and in view of Niepert, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0337587 (“Niepert”).
With regard to Claim 2, Alon, in view of Niepert teaches evaluating the one or more user conditions of the user to determine the one or more user segments comprises determining the one or more user segments via a constant time algorithm by executing the personalization logic, wherein the personalization logic is executed by a web service and is stored in a statically-compiled library, wherein the constant time algorithm is loaded in a library on a webserver and used by the method in real-time and a capped number of operations performed by the constant time algorithm is independent from the size of an input, wherein the input is at least one of: data provided with an event; an attribute of the user; geolocation data of the user; one or more user conditions; one or more user segments; one or more existing users; and one or more prior sessions recorded for the user.
Alon teaches clustering users into groups according to user attributes, conditions, geolocation, etc. as described at [0059]. Niepert teaches at [0013] that users can be mapped to their interests for the purpose of personalizing content in constant time. [0022]-[0023] describe that a categorization component maps request key values from content requests on a periodic basis, to pre-define a lookup table that is used to perform constant-time lookups. [0039]-[0041] describe that a look-up table is updated which stores a mapping of key values from content requests to a set of domain dependent terms for use by the personalization component. Personalization is carried out in constant time by taking this pre-defined segment information and performing a single operation of a table look-up, to determine personalized content matching the vocabulary terms in the look-up table. Feedback can be used to further update the model.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine Niepert with Alon, Michaeli and Eggleston. The use of the constant time personalization algorithm in Niepert reduces computational load when performing personalization in real time. Therefore, one of skill in the art would seek to implement website personalization using this type of algorithm, to improve the functioning of a personalization system by reducing the computational load needed to perform real-time personalization.
Claim 15 recites a method carried out by the system of Claim 2, and the claim is similarly rejected as obvious.
With regard to Claim 12, Alon teaches detecting a change in a user condition; and running the pre-compiled personalization logic for the user in response to the change in the user condition. [0074] describes that tracking occurs in real time to run the personalization, thereby indicating that the system detects changing user conditions, such as user behavior in navigating a page.
Claim 25 recites a method carried out by the system of Claim 12, and the claim is similarly rejected as obvious.
With regard to Claim 13, Alon teaches that the change in the user condition comprises at least one of a user visit to the at least one of the two or more channels and a request by a third party. [0074] describes that the real-time tracking is carried out when users visit a website.
Claim 26 recites a method carried out by the system of Claim 13, and the claim is similarly rejected as obvious.
Claims 10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alon, in view of Eggleston, in view of Michaeli, and in view of Choi, U.S. Patent No. 11,055,749 (“Choi”).
With regard to Claim 10, Choi teaches that the tracking code is installed as a single JavaScript snippet in a header of the webpage. Col. 6, lines 8-21 describe that tracking code can be included in a portion of a webpage as JavaScript included in a header. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine Choi with Alon, Michaeli and Eggleston, as the use of script code thusly embedded in a page can enable tracking across multiple sites, thereby improving the system by increasing the tracking capabilities.
Claim 23 recites a method carried out by the system of Claim 10, and the claim is similarly rejected as obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot, as the newly cited Michaeli reference cures any deficiencies with regard to the previously cited references in teaching or suggesting the elements of the claim added by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 PM.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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 USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
4/30/2026
Prosecution Insights