DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 7/27/2025.
Claims 1-8, 10-19 and 21-27 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 12 and 23-25 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All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.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.
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 CFR 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 1-8, 10-19 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aviyam, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0026280 (“Aviyam”), in view of Wei, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0227078 (“Wei”), and in view of Blumenfeld, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2020/0151226 (“Blumenfeld”).
With regard to Claim 1, Aviyam, in view of Wei teaches a website building system (WBS), the system comprising:
at least one hardware processor; a WBS editor running on said at least one hardware processor to enable a designer to create a website comprising components; and a site evaluator running on said at least one hardware processor to evaluate at least two of: performance, compliance, security and resource use of said website during creation and maintenance and to handle recommended corrective actions accordingly (Aviyam teaches at [0028] a tool with a website building system includes a memory unit and at least one processor, which includes at least one analyzer. [0064] describes that analysis is carried out at the website building stage. [0081] describes that the analyzer includes multiple areas, and [0083] describes site modifications being proposed and which can be carried out automatically. Wei teaches at [0088] a web optimization system including a tester, optimizer, and visualizer, where [0096] describes that the system provides optimization objectives for performance and security. [0085] describes that the system transforms and optimizes the page in the various areas); said site evaluator comprising:
at least two evaluation engines (ALTEE) to evaluate said at least two application areas according to at least two of: performance, compliance, security and resource use rules, scripts and machine learning (ML) models through an analysis of said components and said website information (Aviyam at [0081] describes that the analyzer includes multiple areas. [0064] describes that analysis can be rule based, use AI/machine learning, or a combination of the two. Wei teaches at [0096] that pages can be analyzed to optimize performance and security; [0089] describes that each optimization includes rules used in the analysis. [0098] describes optimizations applied by analyzing the various types of webpage components, and [0101] describes optimizing performance by identifying congestion status and other information about webpage delivery for analysis and optimization);
a site modifier to implement said recommended corrective actions (Aviyam teaches at [0083] describes that a design recommender receives results from the analyzer components and recommends changes to a designer for website components or component compositions; the designer can manually make the change or approve the change to be carried out automatically. Wei teaches at [0090] that the system provides insights and optimizations which can be implemented through one-click actions); and
an evaluation engine handler to enable said designer selection and configuration of said ALTEE (Wei teaches at [0088] that a web optimization system measures a website against an optimization objective selected from among many objectives that can be tested. A customized user interface also allows a user to select custom optimization parameters, where the optimizations include content optimization, browser/device optimization, network optimization, and request optimization).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Aviyam with Wei. Wei provides users with customization and automation of testing and optimizing webpages in several areas in addition to the SEO offered by Aviyam. One of skill in the art would seek to combine Wei with Aviyam, to improve user experience by providing users greater control over testing, the ability to test and implement a much wider as well as automated implementation of optimizations in accordance with the results of customized testing.
Aviyam does not teach a website comprising at least one of: a third party application and a configurable WBS application (CWA) integrated within said website, or said ALTEE comprising a TPA/CWA analyzer to analyze interfaces between said website and associated integrated TPAs and CWAs to determine setup, configurations and parameters of said associated integrated TPAs and CWAs and to generate recommended corrective actions accordingly.
Blumenfeld teaches at [0034] a website building system where users are able to edit and configure applications, which are packaged entities that are embedded in pages created with the system, where [0115] describes that there can also be third-party application providers. [0166]-[0172] describes that a WCA instance may be modified in-place within the page/site in which it resides. Customization can be carried out using a, API analyzer, which analyzes the application’s API the detect properties and interfaces, and generate a matching settings panel top allow a user to modify the application. [0220] describes that when conflicts arise with user customization, the system can provide recommendations for handling conflicts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Blumenfeld with Aviyam and Wei. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling development, documentation, and editing/revision of embedded applications, thereby allowing users to develop more complete and useful web pages through the integration of custom applications.
Claim 12 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected. Claim 23 recites a site evaluator integrated with a website building system that makes up the system of Claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 2, Aviyam teaches an evaluation engine coordinator to receive an evaluation request and to determine which at least two evaluation engines to use; a data gatherer to gather data for use by said at least two evaluation engines; and a repository to store said at least two evaluation engines and their parameters. [0082] describes that depending on the functionality required, not all elements of the analyzer are activated each time the SEO tool is in use. [0085] describes that the analyzer accesses and analyzes component definitions, content and parameter information from a CMS to carry out the site analysis. Fig. 4 shows the tool 80 which includes the analyzer’s multiple analysis engines as shown at Fig. 7 are stored on a website building system.
Claim 13 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 3, Aviyam, in view of Wei teaches that said at least two evaluation engines comprise: a rule engine to activate said at least two of: rules, scripts and machine learning (ML) models; an evaluation analyzer to evaluate said at least two of: performance, compliance, security and resource use according to said rule engine; a results analyzer to analyze the output of said evaluation analyzer; and a recommender to recommend corrective actions to said website according to said results analyzer.
Aviyam at [0064] describes that analysis may be rule based, use AI/machine learning, or a combination of the two. [0083] describes that a design recommender receives analysis results from the analyzer and recommends changes to a site designer, and changes can either be done by the system after confirmation by the designer, or implemented manually by the designer. Wei teaches at [0096] that pages can be analyzed to optimize performance and security; [0089] describes that each optimization includes rules used in the analysis, and [0090] describes that the system provides optimizations to a user through an interface which can be enacted using a one slick action.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Aviyam and Blumenfeld with Wei. Wei provides users with customization and automation of testing and optimizing webpages in several areas in addition to the SEO offered by Aviyam. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by providing users greater control over testing, the ability to test and implement a much wider as well as automated implementation of optimizations in accordance with the results of customized testing.
Claim 14 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 4, Aviyam teaches a site editor to enable said designer to make manual corrective actions to said website according to said recommended corrective actions; and a site user interface (UI) creator to create UIs for said site editor according to said recommended corrective actions. [0083] describes that the system is able to propose a wide variety of changes to the site designer. The designer is prompted to make changes by the system, thus the system creates UIs in the form of prompts.
Claim 15 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 5, Wei teaches that the evaluation engine handler comprises: an evaluation engine (EVE) creator to enable said designer to create and configure an evaluation engine; and an evaluation engine (EVE) editor to enable said designer to edit and update said evaluation engine. [0089] describes that a user signs up for the web optimization system, at which point the user is able to select an objective or function which the user desires to optimize. The user then specifies the optimization parameters and uses the created evaluation engine to test and optimize the website for the particular objective or function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Aviyam and Blumenfeld with Wei. Wei provides users with customization and automation of testing and optimizing webpages in several areas in addition to the SEO offered by Aviyam. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by providing users greater control over testing, the ability to test and implement a much wider as well as automated implementation of optimizations in accordance with the results of customized testing.
Claim 16 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 6, Wei teaches an evaluation engine (EVE) user interface (UI) creator to create at least one user interface for said EVE creator and said EVE engine. [0089] describes that the system provides users the interfaces through which they select the objective or function to optimize, as well as the parameters which are to be used in optimizing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Aviyam and Blumenfeld with Wei. Wei provides users with customization and automation of testing and optimizing webpages in several areas in addition to the SEO offered by Aviyam. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by providing users greater control over testing, the ability to test and implement a much wider as well as automated implementation of optimizations in accordance with the results of customized testing.
Claim 17 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 7, Aviyam teaches a WBS data gatherer to gather at least one of templates, third party application internal material and installed vertical and vertical applications for said website when said website is built using said WBS; an internal data gatherer to integrate information from other sources external to said website within said WBS; and an external data gatherer to access and integrate information for said website from sources external to said WBS. [0096] describes that the system collects data including templates for multiple sites hosted by the website building system, and [0100] describes that external sites can also be analyzed and the analysis used in determining changes for the site in the WBS.
Claim 18 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 8, Aviyam teaches that said evaluation analyzer comprises at least one of: a WBS object analyzer to analyze the component architecture of said website when said website is built using said WBS. [0085] describes that the analyzer accesses component definitions, content and parameter information for the website whose components reside in the CMS of the website building system and a component-based site analysis is carried out.
Claim 19 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 8, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 10, Aviyam teaches that said at least one user category is at least one of: WBS vendor staff, WBS vendor developers, internal studio and customer support/care staff, accessibility (A11y) reviewers, agencies handling client sites, website building and WBS consultants and general WBS users and designers. [0083] describes a website designer using the system to analyze and edit a website.
Claim 21 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 10, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 11, Wei teaches that at least one evaluation engine evaluates at least one of said at least two of: performance, compliance, security and resource use over at least one of: different platforms and responsive design alternatives. [0085] describes that a testing system measures user experience on various devices and various browsers for selected optimization objectives.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Aviyam and Blumenfeld with Wei. Wei provides users with customization and automation of testing and optimizing webpages in several areas in addition to the SEO offered by Aviyam. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by providing users greater control over testing, the ability to test and implement a much wider as well as automated implementation of optimizations in accordance with the results of customized testing.
Claim 22 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 11, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 24, Blumenfeld teaches that said TPA/CWA analyzer determines at least one of: security sessions and Application Programming Interface (API) version information. Claim 21 states that the system is able to generate the setting panel for a changed version of an application by analyzing the API.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Blumenfeld with Aviyam and Wei. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling development, documentation, and editing/revision of embedded applications, thereby allowing users to develop more complete and useful web pages through the integration of custom applications.
Claim 25 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 24, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 26, Blumenfeld teaches that said at least two evaluation engines also analyze information about the designer and designer editing history. [0035] describes that the system collects information about users, including location, language and editing history.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Blumenfeld with Aviyam and Wei. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling development, documentation, and editing/revision of embedded applications, thereby allowing users to develop more complete and useful web pages through the integration of custom applications.
Claim 27 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 26, and is similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot. The newly cited Blumenfeld reference teaches or suggests the elements of the claim added by amendment and argued by Applicant as distinguishing over the previously cited references.
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, Matthew Ell can be reached at 571-270-3264. 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
10/17/2025