DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the claims filed 02/03/2026.
Claims 1-13, 15-17, 32-34, and 37 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/04/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/15/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed 02/18/2026 in response to office action mailed 12/04/2025. The Applicant’s remarks and any amendments to the claims or specification have been considered with the results that follow.
Response to Arguments
In Remarks page 11, Argument 1,
(Examiner summarizes Applicant’s arguments) Applicant argues that Mohan does not teach determining whether to cause content to be pre-cached responsive to access of the internet resource. Applicant further argues that Rojas-Echenique is silent with respect to “information and actions” determined “responsive to access of the Internet resource”.
Examiner’s response to Argument 1
Generally speaking, both Rojas-Echenique and Mohan teach displaying content that is related to some content accessed by a user. Both sources describe these internet content resources and how related content is displayed as a result of their access.
Consider MPEP 2111 “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification."” The broadest reasonable interpretation of “responsive to access of the internet resource” includes any actions performed as a result of accessing the internet resource. Rojas-Echenique teaches:
(paragraph [0048]) “It should be understood that interaction triggers can present information and actions on a primary screen or a secondary screen. For example, the name of a landmark can be displayed on a device (e.g. a smartphone) that matches the frame on the primary screen. In another example, a secondary screen can display purchasable items in the frame being watched on the primary screen, thereby allowing the direct purchase of items on the secondary screen.”; (paragraph [0051]) “Another embodiment provides a product classifier configured to identify one or more purchasable items present in the video frames. For this classifier, the actions to be taken upon triggering the one or more interaction triggers can include, for example, providing one or more links to enable a user to make a purchase of one or more purchasable items”
In other words, Rojas-Echenique teaches rendering related content responsive to certain interaction triggers while a user is watching a video on a primary screen. Moreover, this video content is an internet resource (see e.g. paragraph 19). Thus Rojas-Echenique clearly teaches rendering related content as a result of accessing an internet resource.
Moreover, regarding Mohan, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the utility of advertisements relies on displaying them in context with internet content. The abstract of Mohan provides this context:
(Mohan page 267 abstract) Mobile app marketplaces are dominated by free apps that rely on advertising for their revenue.
Therefore, Mohan teaches prefetching ads as a result of a user accessing an internet resource (e.g. an app downloaded from an internet web store).
In Remarks page 12, Argument 2
(Examiner summarizes Applicant’s arguments) Applicant argues that none of the cited references teach the newly added references.
Examiner’s response to Argument 2
New art is identified to teach on the newly added references rendering Applicant’s arguments moot.
In Remarks page 14, Argument 3
(Examiner summarizes Applicant’s arguments) Applicant states that prior to the invention, related content was rendered in a static manner leading to improper timing of display. Applicant argues that rendering when interaction conditions are triggered ensures notifications are not displayed too soon, too late, or not at all. Applicant states that pre-caching can reduce latency and balance latency reduction with network usage, reflected in the claims by identifying content to be pre-cached and pre-caching the identified content. Applicant cites from the specification and the MPEP.
Examiner’s response to Argument 3
MPEP 2106.05(a) recites:
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
[…]
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.
[…]
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.
Examiner notes that limitations which recite observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions are abstract idea limitations, and any technical improvements cannot be provided by abstract ideas alone. The additional elements in the instant application perform generic pre-caching and content rendering which are ordinary operations performed by computers. The details of how, for example, latency reduction and network usage are balanced are not present in the claims. Even when considering the ordered combination of claim elements, the additional elements merely provide the idea of a solution to the problems identified in the 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 1-13, 15-17, 32-34, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for containing an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites the abstract ideas of:
A method implemented using one or more processors, the method comprising: determining a plurality of attributes for an Internet resource, wherein the plurality of attributes comprise one or more content attributes that are based on content of the Internet resource — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing a judgement about parameters used as an input for future evaluation.
processing the plurality of attributes, using a machine learning model, to generate predicted output — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing an evaluation of given data using machine learning parameters or processes.
determining, based on the predicted output, one or more interaction conditions for triggering provision of a related content interface notification for the Internet resource — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing an evaluation of a set of rules and conditions.
determining whether to cause related content, included in the related content interface notification, to be pre-cached at the given client device — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing a judgement of whether particular data should be saved or not saved.
identifying the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device based on one or more of: a quantity of users that have accessed both the Internet resource and the related content, an extent in overlap in content between the Internet resource and the related content, or a frequency of co-occurrence between the Internet resource and the related content in search results: — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to an observation of how relevant multiple content are to each other, and a judgment about the right content to be pre-cached based on the observations.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
responsive to determining to cause the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device: causing the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device — This limitation is directed to insignificant application of data, which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
and responsive to determining the one or more interaction conditions are satisfied for triggering the provision of the related content interface notification for the Internet resource: causing the given client device to obtain and render at least the related content as the related content interface notification — This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using generic device rendering to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the device rendering is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
responsive to determining to cause the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device: causing the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device — This limitation is recited in a merely generic manner and amounts to prefetching of any type of content, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. A factual determination that this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.) is supported by, Mohan et al. “Prefetching mobile ads: Can advertising systems afford it?”, which recites (page 279 conclusion) “content prefetching is a well-established practice in several domains (file systems, web browsing and search”. Therefore, the additional element cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
and responsive to determining the one or more interaction conditions are satisfied for triggering the provision of the related content interface notification for the Internet resource: causing the given client device to obtain and render at least the related content as the related content interface notification — Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Claim 2
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the one or more content attributes comprise a type attribute that indicates a type, of a plurality of disparate types, to which the Internet resource most closely conforms — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the content attributes.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the one or more content attributes comprise a type attribute that indicates a type, of a plurality of disparate types, to which the Internet resource most closely conforms — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 3
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the one or more content attributes comprise a structural attribute, and wherein determining the structural attribute is based on an organizational structure of markup language of the Internet resource — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the content attributes.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the one or more content attributes comprise a structural attribute, and wherein determining the structural attribute is based on an organizational structure of markup language of the Internet resource — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the one or more content attributes comprise an embedding of at least some of the content of the Internet resource, and wherein the embedding is generated based on processing the at least some of the content using an additional machine learning model — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the content attributes.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the one or more content attributes comprise an embedding of at least some of the content of the Internet resource, and wherein the embedding is generated based on processing the at least some of the content using an additional machine learning model — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 5
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the plurality of attributes further comprise one or more navigation attributes indicating one or more particular attributes for navigating to the Internet resource — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the plurality of attributes.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the plurality of attributes further comprise one or more navigation attributes indicating one or more particular attributes for navigating to the Internet resource — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 5 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 5). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein determining, based on the predicted output, (a) to provide the related content interface notification for the Internet resource, and (b) the one or more interaction conditions for triggering provision of the related content interface notification, occur prior to access of the Internet resource by the given client device — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the time that the processing is performed.
and wherein causing the given client device to render the related content interface notification in response to determining that the access of the Internet resource satisfies the one or more interaction conditions is further in response to determining that the access of the Internet resource by the given client device is a result of navigation that conforms to the one or more navigation attributes — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the rendering of the related content interface notification.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein determining, based on the predicted output, (a) to provide the related content interface notification for the Internet resource, and (b) the one or more interaction conditions for triggering provision of the related content interface notification, occur prior to access of the Internet resource by the given client device — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
and wherein causing the given client device to render the related content interface notification in response to determining that the access of the Internet resource satisfies the one or more interaction conditions is further in response to determining that the access of the Internet resource by the given client device is a result of navigation that conforms to the one or more navigation attributes — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 5 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 5). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the one or more navigation attributes comprise a path attribute that indicates a given navigational path, of a plurality of navigational paths, for accessing the Internet resource — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the navigation attributes.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the one or more navigation attributes comprise a path attribute that indicates a given navigational path, of a plurality of navigational paths, for accessing the Internet resource — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 7 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 7). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the given navigational path is: a query-based path that indicates accessing the Internet resource responsive to one or more search queries, or a query-independent path that indicates accessing the Internet resource independent of any query — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the navigational path.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the given navigational path is: a query-based path that indicates accessing the Internet resource responsive to one or more search queries, or a query-independent path that indicates accessing the Internet resource independent of any query — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 9
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 8 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 8). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the given navigational path is the query-based path and indicates a breadth of the one or more search queries — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the navigational path.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the given navigational path is the query-based path and indicates a breadth of the one or more search queries — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 10
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the plurality of attributes further comprise one or more global historical interaction attributes that indicate measured past extents of past interactions, with previous related content interface notifications, responsive to previous renderings of the previous related content interface notifications for past accesses, by a plurality of client devices, of the Internet resource and/or of additional Internet resources determined to be similar to the Internet resource — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the plurality of interactions.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the plurality of attributes further comprise one or more global historical interaction attributes that indicate measured past extents of past interactions, with previous related content interface notifications, responsive to previous renderings of the previous related content interface notifications for past accesses, by a plurality of client devices, of the Internet resource and/or of additional Internet resources determined to be similar to the Internet resource — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 11
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the plurality of attributes further comprise one or more personal historical interaction attributes that indicate measured past extents of past interactions, by a user of the given client device, with previous related content interface notifications — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the plurality of interactions.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the plurality of attributes further comprise one or more personal historical interaction attributes that indicate measured past extents of past interactions, by a user of the given client device, with previous related content interface notifications — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 12
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 11 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 11). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the measured past extents of past interactions are with previous related content interface notifications for past accesses of additional Internet resources determined to be similar to the Internet resource — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the data operated upon.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the measured past extents of past interactions are with previous related content interface notifications for past accesses of additional Internet resources determined to be similar to the Internet resource — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 13
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein determining, based on the predicted output, the one or more interaction conditions for triggering provision of the related content interface notification, occurs prior to access of the Internet resource by the given client device — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the time that the processing is performed.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein determining, based on the predicted output, the one or more interaction conditions for triggering provision of the related content interface notification, occurs prior to access of the Internet resource by the given client device — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 15
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the one or more interaction conditions comprise a duration of the access of the Internet resource — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the interaction conditions.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the one or more interaction conditions comprise a duration of the access of the Internet resource — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 16
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the one or more interaction conditions comprise a scrolling condition that indicates whether, during access of the Internet resource, scrolling has occurred, an extent of the scrolling, a speed of the scrolling, or a direction of the scrolling — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the interaction conditions.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the one or more interaction conditions comprise a scrolling condition that indicates whether, during access of the Internet resource, scrolling has occurred, an extent of the scrolling, a speed of the scrolling, or a direction of the scrolling — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 17
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 1 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 1). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the one or more interaction conditions comprise at least two interaction conditions, and wherein access of the Internet resource satisfies the one or more interaction conditions only when each of the at least two interaction conditions are satisfied — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the interaction conditions.
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the one or more interaction conditions comprise at least two interaction conditions, and wherein access of the Internet resource satisfies the one or more interaction conditions only when each of the at least two interaction conditions are satisfied — Merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 32:
Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claim recites the abstract ideas of:
A method implemented using one or more processors, the method comprising: determining a plurality of attributes for an Internet resource, wherein the plurality of attributes comprise: one or more content attributes that are based on content of the Internet resource, and one or more navigation attributes indicating one or more particular attributes for navigating to the Internet resource — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing a judgement about parameters used as an input for future evaluation.
determining, based on the plurality of attributes, one or more navigation attribute specific interaction conditions for triggering provision of a related content interface notification for the Internet resource — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing an evaluation of given data using machine learning parameters or processes.
determining whether to cause related content, included in the related content interface notification, to be pre-cached at the given client device — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing a judgement of whether particular data should be saved or not saved.
identifying the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device based on one or more of: a quantity of users that have accessed both the Internet resource and the related content, an extent in overlap in content between the Internet resource and the related content, or a frequency of co-occurrence between the Internet resource and the related content in search results — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to an observation of how relevant multiple content are to each other, and a judgment about the right content to be pre-cached based on the observations.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements:
responsive to determining to cause the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device: causing the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device — This limitation is directed to insignificant application of data, which has been recognized by the courts (as per Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.) as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
and responsive to determining that the access of the Internet resource by the given client device is a result of navigation that conforms to the one or more navigation attributes: causing the given client device to obtain and render at least the related content as the related content interface notification— This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. Using generic device rendering to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Even if the device rendering is implemented on a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)), the limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
responsive to determining to cause the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device: causing the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device — This limitation is recited in a merely generic manner and amounts to prefetching of any type of content, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. A factual determination that this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) I.) is supported by, Mohan et al. “Prefetching mobile ads: Can advertising systems afford it?”, which recites (page 279 conclusion) “content prefetching is a well-established practice in several domains (file systems, web browsing and search”. Therefore, the additional element cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
and responsive to determining that the access of the Internet resource by the given client device is a result of navigation that conforms to the one or more navigation attributes: causing the given client device to obtain and render at least the related content as the related content interface notification — Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Claim 33
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 32 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 32). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 2:
wherein the one or more navigation attributes comprise a path attribute that indicates a given navigational path, of a plurality of navigational paths, for accessing the Internet resource — This limitation is directed to merely limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) as it merely limits the field of the navigation attributes
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
The additional elements as identified in step 2A prong 2:
wherein the one or more navigation attributes comprise a path attribute that indicates a given navigational path, of a plurality of navigational paths, for accessing the Internet resource — Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 34
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is dependent on claim 33 which included an abstract idea (see rejection for claim 33). The claim recites the additional limitations:
Step 2A Prong 1:
wherein determining, based on the plurality of attributes, the one or more navigation specific interaction conditions comprises: processing the plurality of attributes, using a machine learning model, to generate a predicted output — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing an evaluation of given data using machine learning parameters or processes.
and determining the one or more navigation specific interaction conditions based on the predicted output — This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). The limitation is directed to a mental process because it amounts to performing an evaluation of a set of rules and conditions.
determining whether to cause related content, included in the related content interface notification, to be pre-cached at the given client device;
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding Claim 37
Independent claim 37 is a computer system claim corresponding to method claim 1, which was directed to an abstract idea, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies. The only differences are that claim 37 recites some minor differences in wording that do not substantially change the scope of the claims, as well as recites the following additional elements treated under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B:
Step 2A Prong 2:
A system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising: — This limitation is directed to merely applying an abstract idea using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.04(d)).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2.
Step 2B:
A system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising: — Using a generic computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), 2106.05(d)) cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Thus, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
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, 5-6, 13, 32, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas-Echenique et al. (PGPUB no. US20190373322A1) herein referred to as Rojas-Echenique in view of NPL reference Mohan et al. “Prefetching mobile ads: Can advertising systems afford it?” herein referred to as Mohan, and Xiao et al. “SIMILARITY-AWARE WEB CONTENT MANAGEMENT AND DOCUMENT PRE-FETCHING”.
Regarding Claim 1
Rojas-Echenique teaches:
A method implemented using one or more processors, the method comprising: determining a plurality of attributes for an Internet resource, wherein the plurality of attributes comprise one or more content attributes that are based on content of the Internet resource
(paragraph [0007]) “An example method includes receiving a video content[*Examiner notes: content of internet resource] including one or more video frames[*Examiner notes: determining a plurality of attributes, content attributes], running one or more machine-learning classifiers on the one or more video frames to create classification metadata, the classification metadata corresponding to the one or more machine-learning classifiers and one or more probability scores associated with the classification metadata”; (paragraph [0019]) “The video content may include any form of media, including, but not limited to, live streaming, subscription-based streaming services, movies, television, internet videos[*Examiner notes: internet resource], user generated video content (e.g., direct video upload or screen recording) and so forth.”; [*Examiner notes: Frames of a video is derived from the full video content and thus represent a plurality of attributes based on content of the video]
processing the plurality of attributes, using a machine learning model, to generate predicted output
(paragraph [0007]) “An example method includes receiving a video content including one or more video frames, running one or more machine-learning classifiers on the one or more video frames to create classification metadata, the classification metadata corresponding to the one or more machine-learning classifiers[*Examiner notes: using a machine learning model] and one or more probability scores associated with the classification metadata[*Examiner notes: classification metadata and probability scores mapped to output]”;
determining, based on the predicted output, one or more interaction conditions for triggering provision of a related content interface notification for the Internet resource
(paragraph [0007]) “running one or more machine-learning classifiers on the one or more video frames to create classification metadata, the classification metadata corresponding to the one or more machine-learning classifiers and one or more probability scores associated with the classification metadata, creating one or more interaction triggers based on a set of rules[*Examiner notes: determining one or more interaction conditions], determining that a condition for triggering at least one of the triggers is met, and triggering the one or more actions with regard to the video content based on the determination, the classification metadata, and the probability score.”; (paragraph [0045]) “At operation 315, processing module 135 can create one or more interaction triggers based on a set of rules. The interaction triggers are configured to trigger one or more actions with regard to the video content based on the classification metadata, and optionally, based on one or more of the probability scores[*Examiner notes: based on predicted output].”; (paragraph [0053]) “In addition, in this embodiment, the actions to be taken upon triggering the one or more interaction triggers can include one or more of the following: providing recommendations related to another media content[*Examiner notes: provision of related content] associated with the sentiment level and providing other media content associated with the sentiment level.”
and responsive to access of the Internet resource by a given client device, […] and responsive to determining the one or more interaction conditions are satisfied for triggering the provision of the related content interface notification for the Internet resource: causing the given client device to obtain and render at least the related content as the related content interface notification
(paragraph [0048]) “It should be understood that interaction triggers can present information and actions on a primary screen or a secondary screen. For example, the name of a landmark can be displayed on a device (e.g. a smartphone) that matches the frame on the primary screen. In another example, a secondary screen can display purchasable items in the frame being watched on the primary screen, thereby allowing the direct purchase of items on the secondary screen.”; (paragraph [0051]) “Another embodiment provides a product classifier configured to identify one or more purchasable items present in the video frames. For this classifier, the actions to be taken upon triggering the one or more interaction triggers can include, for example, providing one or more links to enable a user to make a purchase of one or more purchasable items”
Rojas-Echenique does not explicitly teach:
determining whether to cause related content, included in the related content interface notification, to be pre-cached at the given client device;
responsive to determining to cause the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device: causing the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device;
identifying the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device based on one or more of: a quantity of users that have accessed both the Internet resource and the related content, an extent in overlap in content between the Internet resource and the related content, or a frequency of co-occurrence between the Internet resource and the related content in search results:
However, Mohan teaches:
determining whether to cause related content, included in the related content interface notification, to be pre-cached at the given client device; responsive to determining to cause the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device: causing the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device;
(page 271 column 2 last paragraph) “One way to incorporate ad prefetching into the existing ad ecosystem is to use a proxy between the ad server and the mobile client. A client with available ad slots contacts the proxy that prefetches a batch of ads from the ad exchange (through the ad server) and sends the batch to the client. After the client has displayed all ads of the batch[*Examiner notes: determining whether to cause content to be pre-cached], it contacts the proxy again and gets the next batch of ads”
Rojas-Echenique, Mohan, and the instant application are analogous because they are all directed to provision of content to a user.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the content recommendation of Rojas-Echenique with the ad prefetching of Mohan because (Mohan page 279 column 1 conclusion) “The advantage of prefetching ads in bulk for smartphone users is significant: we show the communication energy consumed by ads can be reduced by 50% or more.”
And Xiao teaches:
responsive to determining to cause the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device: identifying the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device based on one or more of: a quantity of users that have accessed both the Internet resource and the related content, an extent in overlap in content between the Internet resource and the related content, or a frequency of co-occurrence between the Internet resource and the related content in search results:
(page 2308 column 2 paragraph 3) “In this paper we define similarity measures of web documents for effective web document caching and pre-fetching[*Examiner notes: responsive to determining to cause the related content to be pre-cached].”; (page 2309 column 1 last paragraph) “The function intersect(w(r1),w(r2)) returns the percentage of the number of common words divided by the number of all words that appear in both w(r1) and w(r2). Clearly, intersect(w(r1),w(r2))≤1, while equality exists when w(r1)=w(r2).”; (page 2311 column 1 paragraph 4) “Suppose a client is viewing a document, say p (at this time, a copy of p must be cached in a certain sub-cache, say i, or being held by the allocator). Then the pre-fetching predictor will calculate the similarities between p and those documents in sub-cache i by referencing the similarity information in ith SP. […] These k documents, together with those cached pages to which hyperlinks exist from p, will be returned to the pre-fetcher for the possibility of pre-fetching.”
Rojas-Echenique, Mohan, Xiao, and the instant application are analogous because they are all directed to provision of content to a user.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the content recommendation of Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan by using the content similarity measure for determining content to pre-fetch as taught by Xiao because (Xiao page 2312 column 1 paragraph 2) “We proposed a similarity-aware web content management scheme, presented its underlying algorithms and developed a similarity-aware predictor for web document pre-fetching between proxy caches and browsing clients. Simulations indicate that our predictor is capable of practical prediction for web document pre-fetching in the sense that it may predict more accurately and rapidly than the traditional PPM does by only referencing to a reduced set of users' past access patterns.”
Regarding Claim 5
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao teaches:
The method of claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
Rojas-Echenique further teaches:
wherein the plurality of attributes further comprise one or more navigation attributes indicating one or more particular attributes for navigating to the Internet resource
(paragraph [0047]) “In method 300, interactive video content system 105 or any other element of system architecture 100 or 200 can create one or more entry points corresponding to the interaction triggers. Each of the entry points includes a user input associated with the video content, or a user gesture associated with the video content[*Examiner notes: mapped to navigation attributes]. Particularly, each of the entry points can include one or more of the following: a pause of the video content, a jump point of the video content, a bookmark of the video content, a location marker of the video content, changes in user environment detected by connected sensor, and a search result associated with the video content.”
Regarding Claim 6
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao teaches:
The method of claim 5
(see rejection of claim 5)
Rojas-Echenique further teaches:
wherein determining, based on the predicted output, (a) to provide the related content interface notification for the Internet resource, and (b) the one or more interaction conditions for triggering provision of the related content interface notification, occur prior to access of the Internet resource by the given client device
(paragraph [0038]) “Interactive video content delivery system 105 may also include a processing module 135 configured to create one or more interaction triggers based on a set of rules. The interaction triggers can be configured to trigger one or more actions with regard to the video content based on the classification metadata and, optionally, the probability scores. The rules can be predetermined[*Examiner notes: prior to access of the internet resource] or dynamically selected based on one or more of the following:”; Figure 3; [*Examiner notes: Box 315 (determining interaction conditions) in figure 3 occurs prior to box 320 (access of the internet resource).]
PNG
media_image1.png
472
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and wherein causing the given client device to render the related content interface notification in response to determining that the access of the Internet resource satisfies the one or more interaction conditions is further in response to determining that the access of the Internet resource by the given client device is a result of navigation that conforms to the one or more navigation attributes
(paragraph [0058]) “FIG. 4 shows an example graphical user interface (GUI) 400 of user device 110 for displaying at least one frame of video content (e.g., a movie), according to one embodiment. This example GUI shows that when a user pauses playback of video content, an entry point is detected by interactive video content system 105. In response to the detection, interactive video content system 105 triggers an action associated with an actor identified in the video frame. The action can include providing overlaying information 405 about the actor (in this example, the actor's name and face frame are shown). Notably, information 405 about the actor can be generated dynamically in real time, but this is not necessary. Information 405 can be generated based on buffered video content.”
Regarding Claim 13
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao teaches:
The method of claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
Rojas-Echenique further teaches:
wherein determining, based on the predicted output, the one or more interaction conditions for triggering provision of the related content interface notification, occurs prior to access of the Internet resource by the given client device
(paragraph [0038]) “Interactive video content delivery system 105 may also include a processing module 135 configured to create one or more interaction triggers based on a set of rules. The interaction triggers can be configured to trigger one or more actions with regard to the video content based on the classification metadata and, optionally, the probability scores. The rules can be predetermined[*Examiner notes: prior to access of the internet resource] or dynamically selected based on one or more of the following:”; Figure 3; [*Examiner notes: Box 315 (determining interaction conditions) in figure 3 occurs prior to box 320 (access of the internet resource).]
PNG
media_image1.png
472
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 32
Rojas-Echenique teaches:
A method implemented using one or more processors, the method comprising: determining a plurality of attributes for an Internet resource, wherein the plurality of attributes comprise: one or more content attributes that are based on content of the Internet resource
(paragraph [0007]) “An example method includes receiving a video content[*Examiner notes: internet resource] including one or more video frames[*Examiner notes: determining a plurality of attributes], running one or more machine-learning classifiers on the one or more video frames to create classification metadata, the classification metadata corresponding to the one or more machine-learning classifiers and one or more probability scores associated with the classification metadata”; (paragraph [0019]) “The video content may include any form of media, including, but not limited to, live streaming, subscription-based streaming services, movies, television, internet videos[*Examiner notes: internet resource], user generated video content (e.g., direct video upload or screen recording) and so forth.”
and one or more navigation attributes indicating one or more particular attributes for navigating to the Internet resource;
(paragraph [0023]) “The systems and methods of this disclosure may also include tracking a traversal history of the user and providing a graphical user interface (GUI) for user-related information to the video content or a particular frame from one or more entry points”
determining, based on the plurality of attributes, one or more navigation attribute specific interaction conditions for triggering provision of a related content interface notification for the Internet resource;
(paragraph [0047]) “In method 300, interactive video content system 105 or any other element of system architecture 100 or 200 can create one or more entry points corresponding to the interaction triggers[*Examiner notes: mapped to navigation attribute specific interaction conditions]. Each of the entry points includes a user input associated with the video content, or a user gesture associated with the video content. Particularly, each of the entry points can include one or more of the following: a pause of the video content, a jump point of the video content, a bookmark of the video content, a location marker of the video content, changes in user environment detected by connected sensor, and a search result associated with the video content.”
responsive to access of the Internet resource by a given client device, and responsive to determining that the access of the Internet resource by the given client device is a result of navigation that conforms to the one or more navigation attributes: causing the given client device to render the related content interface notification in response to determining that the access of the Internet resource satisfies the one or more navigation attribute specific interaction conditions.
(paragraph [0048]) “It should be understood that interaction triggers can present information and actions on a primary screen or a secondary screen. For example, the name of a landmark can be displayed on a device (e.g. a smartphone) that matches the frame on the primary screen. In another example, a secondary screen can display purchasable items in the frame being watched on the primary screen, thereby allowing the direct purchase of items on the secondary screen.”; (paragraph [0058]) “FIG. 4 shows an example graphical user interface (GUI) 400 of user device 110 for displaying at least one frame of video content (e.g., a movie), according to one embodiment. This example GUI shows that when a user pauses playback of video content, an entry point is detected by interactive video content system 105. In response to the detection, interactive video content system 105 triggers an action associated with an actor identified in the video frame. The action can include providing overlaying information 405 about the actor (in this example, the actor's name and face frame are shown). Notably, information 405 about the actor can be generated dynamically in real time, but this is not necessary. Information 405 can be generated based on buffered video content.”
Rojas-Echenique does not explicitly teach:
determining whether to cause related content, included in the related content interface notification, to be pre-cached at the given client device; responsive to determining to cause the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device:
identifying the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device based on one or more of: a quantity of users that have accessed both the Internet resource and the related content, an extent in overlap in content between the Internet resource and the related content, or a frequency of co-occurrence between the Internet resource and the related content in search results;
causing the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device
However, Mohan teaches:
determining whether to cause related content, included in the related content interface notification, to be pre-cached at the given client device; responsive to determining to cause the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device: causing the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device
(page 271 column 2 last paragraph) “One way to incorporate ad prefetching into the existing ad ecosystem is to use a proxy between the ad server and the mobile client. A client with available ad slots contacts the proxy that prefetches a batch of ads from the ad exchange (through the ad server) and sends the batch to the client. After the client has displayed all ads of the batch[*Examiner notes: determining whether to cause content to be pre-cached], it contacts the proxy again and gets the next batch of ads”
Rojas-Echenique, Mohan, and the instant application are analogous because they are all directed to provision of content to a user.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the content recommendation of Rojas-Echenique with the ad pre-caching of Mohan because (Mohan page 279 column 1 conclusion) “The advantage of prefetching ads in bulk for smartphone users is significant: we show the communication energy consumed by ads can be reduced by 50% or more.”
And Xiao teaches:
determining whether to cause related content, included in the related content interface notification, to be pre-cached at the given client device; responsive to determining to cause the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device: identifying the related content to be pre-cached at the given client device based on one or more of: a quantity of users that have accessed both the Internet resource and the related content, an extent in overlap in content between the Internet resource and the related content, or a frequency of co-occurrence between the Internet resource and the related content in search results;
(page 2308 column 2 paragraph 3) “In this paper we define similarity measures of web documents for effective web document caching and pre-fetching[*Examiner notes: responsive to determining to cause the related content to be pre-cached].”; (page 2309 column 1 last paragraph) “The function intersect(w(r1),w(r2)) returns the percentage of the number of common words divided by the number of all words that appear in both w(r1) and w(r2). Clearly, intersect(w(r1),w(r2))≤1, while equality exists when w(r1)=w(r2).”; (page 2311 column 1 paragraph 4) “Suppose a client is viewing a document, say p (at this time, a copy of p must be cached in a certain sub-cache, say i, or being held by the allocator). Then the pre-fetching predictor will calculate the similarities between p and those documents in sub-cache i by referencing the similarity information in ith SP. […] These k documents, together with those cached pages to which hyperlinks exist from p, will be returned to the pre-fetcher for the possibility of pre-fetching.”
Rojas-Echenique, Mohan, Xiao, and the instant application are analogous because they are all directed to provision of content to a user.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the content recommendation of Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan by using the content similarity measure for determining content to pre-fetch as taught by Xiao because (Xiao page 2312 column 1 paragraph 2) “We proposed a similarity-aware web content management scheme, presented its underlying algorithms and developed a similarity-aware predictor for web document pre-fetching between proxy caches and browsing clients. Simulations indicate that our predictor is capable of practical prediction for web document pre-fetching in the sense that it may predict more accurately and rapidly than the traditional PPM does by only referencing to a reduced set of users' past access patterns.”
Regarding Claim 37
Claim 37 is a computer system claim corresponding to method claim 1. The only differences are that claim 37 recites some minor differences in wording that do not substantially change the scope of the claims, as well as a computer with processors and memory:
Rojas-Echenique teaches:
A system comprising; one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
(paragraph [0034]) “Interactive video content delivery system 105 may include at least one processor and at least one memory for storing processor-executable instructions associated with the methods disclosed herein.”
The remaining limitations of the claim are taught by the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan, Xiao, and further in view of Amy May et al. (PGPUB no. US20170302627A1) herein referred to as Amy May.
Regarding Claim 2
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao teaches:
The method of claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more content attributes comprise a type attribute that indicates a type, of a plurality of disparate types, to which the Internet resource most closely conforms
However, Amy May teaches:
wherein the one or more content attributes comprise a type attribute that indicates a type, of a plurality of disparate types, to which the Internet resource most closely conforms
(paragraph [0098]) “The marker database 500 is a reference data set that is defined according to the venue's industry and segment profile. For example, in retail, segmentation can be made based on product categories like fashion, electronics or sports.”; (paragraph [0023]) “The method may include a step of profiling the content prior to matching the content. This step may comprise acquiring the content and/or categorising the content. The content may be categorised into a type in accordance with a predefined list of keywords and a topic-based text classifier.”
Rojas-Echenique, Mohan, Xiao, Amy May, and the instant application are analogous because they are all directed to provision of content to a user and/or machine learning.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the content recommendation of Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao with the types as taught by Amy May because (Amy May paragraph [0227]) “A potential advantage of some embodiments of the present invention is that content can be dynamically served to a mobile device based upon the granular location of the device (and, therefore, the user) and behavioural characteristics of the user of the mobile device. It will be appreciated that this technical advantage has several non-technical, flow-on advantages including the ability for a retail store to maximise sales by delivering relevant content to the user's mobile device such as further details about specific products items, and/or targeted sales.”
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao, and further in view of Jones et al. (PGPUB no. US20180225032A1) herein referred to as Jones.
Regarding Claim 3
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao teaches:
The method of claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more content attributes comprise a structural attribute, and wherein determining the structural attribute is based on an organizational structure of markup language of the Internet resource
However, Jones teaches:
wherein the one or more content attributes comprise a structural attribute, and wherein determining the structural attribute is based on an organizational structure of markup language of the Internet resource
(paragraph [0039]) “Additionally or alternatively, in some implementations, one or more content recognition engines 129A-C may be configured to receive, as input, content (e.g., text, images, a combination thereof) contained in a semantic region that was segmented from displayed content based on markup language underlying the displayed content[*Examiner notes: mapped to organizational structure of markup language], and to provide, as output, an indication of at least some of that content.”
Rojas-Echenique, Mohan, Xiao, Jones, and the instant application are analogous because they are all directed to provision of content to a user and/or machine learning.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the content recommendation of Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao with the structural attribute taught by Jones because (Jones paragraph [0003]) “A semantic region may include, for instance, a discrete image, a discrete portion of text (e.g., a list, a displayed text message, an isolated passage of text, a price, an entity name/description, etc.), and so forth. Content being displayed to a user may be segmented into semantic regions in various ways. In some implementations, if the user is viewing a webpage, markup language such as HTML or XML underlying the webpage may be leveraged to segment the webpage into semantic regions, e.g., using various markup language tags or other related signals.”
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao, and further in view of Baek et al. (PGPUB no. US20210089822A1) herein referred to as Baek.
Regarding Claim 4
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao teaches:
The method of claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102)
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more content attributes comprise an embedding of at least some of the content of the Internet resource
and wherein the embedding is generated based on processing the at least some of the content using an additional machine learning model
However, Baek teaches:
wherein the one or more content attributes comprise an embedding of at least some of the content of the Internet resource
(paragraph [0020]) “For example, the dimensionality of the content type embedding may be around six or seven for encoding approximately one thousand different content types. However, no particular dimensionality is required of the content type embeddings and the dimensionality may be selected according to the requirements of the particular implementation at hand. For example, the dimensionality may be selected empirically as the smallest dimensionality that retains sufficient information about the semantic similarities[*Examiner notes: embedding]”
and wherein the embedding is generated based on processing the at least some of the content using an additional machine learning model
Fig. 2; (paragraph [0160]) “Examples of content-based signals for a content item may include, but are not limited to, a content item name (e.g., a filename or a folder name) and text keywords extracted from, associated with, or determined based on the content item[*Examiner notes: mapped to the at least some of the content].”; (paragraph [0161]) “At a next stage in pipeline 200, the signals fetched by signal fetching module[*Examiner notes: at least some of the content] 204 from signal store 214 for the candidate set of content items selected are encoded as feature vectors for the candidate content items by feature encoding module 206[*Examiner notes: machine learning]. Generally, this feature encoding encompasses converting the fetched signals to vectors of floating-point numbers. As part of this encoding, the content type signals fetched for the candidate content items can be encoded as content type embeddings 216.”; (paragraph [0108]) “According to some embodiments, content type embeddings are learned based on signals[*Examiner notes: machine learning] on content type semantic similarity such as the signals in co-occurrence data”
Rojas-Echenique, Mohan, Xiao, Baek, and the instant application are analogous because they are all directed to provision of content to a user and/or machine learning.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the content recommendation of Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao with the lower-dimensional embedding taught by Baek because (Baek paragraph [0024]) “A benefit the disclosed techniques is that the content type embeddings facilitate learning and use of a single or fewer content suggestion model(s) for suggesting content of different content types. The content type embeddings facilitate this by having the property that the distance in the embedding space between any two content type embeddings in the embedding space corresponds to the semantic similarity between the two content types represented by the two content type embeddings. Because of this property, a single content suggestion model can reflect the semantic similarities between different content types.”
Claims 7-9, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao, and further in view of Ezepov (PGPUB no. US20190034535A1) herein referred to as Ezepov.
Regarding Claim 7
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao teaches:
The method of claim 5
(see rejection of claim 5)
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more navigation attributes comprise a path attribute that indicates a given navigational path, of a plurality of navigational paths, for accessing the Internet resource
However, Ezepov teaches:
wherein the one or more navigation attributes comprise a path attribute that indicates a given navigational path, of a plurality of navigational paths, for accessing the Internet resource
FIG. 5; (paragraph [0016]) “In some embodiments of the method, generating the one or more navigational session transition patterns comprises parsing the chronologically sorted one or more URLs into the one or more navigational sessions based on its respective access times.”
Rojas-Echenique, Mohan, Xiao, Ezepov, and the instant application are analogous because they are all directed to provision of content to a user and/or machine learning.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the content recommendation of Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao with the navigation attributes of Ezepov because (Ezepov paragraph [0104]) “In developing the present technology, developers noted that by analyzing the navigational history data 302 of the browser application 108, a better insight of the user's characteristics can be obtained (described below), which could then be used to select one or more “personalized” targeted content items that are likely to be of an affinity to the user.”
Regarding Claim 8
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan, Xiao, and Ezepov teaches:
The method of claim 7
(see rejection of claim 7)
Ezepov further teaches:
wherein the given navigational path is: a query-based path that indicates accessing the Internet resource responsive to one or more search queries, or a query-independent path that indicates accessing the Internet resource independent of any query
(paragraph [0003]) “The given user can access a particular resource directly, either by typing an address of the resource (typically an URL or Universal Resource Locator, such as www.webpage.com) or by clicking a link in an e-mail or in another web resource. Alternatively, the given user may conduct a search using a search engine to locate a resource of interest.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine Rojas-Echenique, Mohan, and Xiao with Ezepov for the same reasons given in claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 9
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan, Xiao, and Ezepov teaches:
The method of claim 8
(see rejection of claim 8)
Ezepov further teaches:
wherein the given navigational path is the query-based path and indicates a breadth of the one or more search queries.
(paragraph [0003]) “Alternatively, the given user may conduct a search using a search engine to locate a resource of interest. The latter is particularly suitable in those circumstances, where the given user knows a topic of interest[*Examiner notes: indicates a breadth of the one or more search queries], but does not know the exact address of the resource she is interested in.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine Rojas-Echenique, Mohan, and Xiao with Ezepov for the same reasons given in claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 33
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao teaches:
The method of claim 32
(see rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. 102)
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more navigation attributes comprise a path attribute that indicates a given navigational path, of a plurality of navigational paths, for accessing the Internet resource.
However, Ezepov teaches:
wherein the one or more navigation attributes comprise a path attribute that indicates a given navigational path, of a plurality of navigational paths, for accessing the Internet resource
FIG. 5; (paragraph [0016]) “In some embodiments of the method, generating the one or more navigational session transition patterns comprises parsing the chronologically sorted one or more URLs into the one or more navigational sessions based on its respective access times.”
Rojas-Echenique, Mohan, Xiao, Ezepov, and the instant application are analogous because they are all directed to provision of content to a user and/or machine learning.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the content recommendation of Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao with the navigation attributes of Ezepov because (Ezepov paragraph [0104]) “In developing the present technology, developers noted that by analyzing the navigational history data 302 of the browser application 108, a better insight of the user's characteristics can be obtained (described below), which could then be used to select one or more “personalized” targeted content items that are likely to be of an affinity to the user.”
Regarding Claim 34
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan, Xiao, and Ezepov teaches:
The method of claim 33
(see rejection of claim 33)
Rojas-Echenique further teaches:
wherein determining, based on the plurality of attributes, the one or more navigation specific interaction conditions comprises: processing the plurality of attributes, using a machine learning model, to generate a predicted output;
(paragraph [0007]) “An example method includes receiving a video content including one or more video frames, running one or more machine-learning classifiers on the one or more video frames to create classification metadata, the classification metadata corresponding to the one or more machine-learning classifiers[*Examiner notes: using a machine learning model] and one or more probability scores associated with the classification metadata[*Examiner notes: classification metadata and probability scores mapped to output]”;
and determining the one or more navigation specific interaction conditions based on the predicted output.
(paragraph [0007]) “An example method includes receiving a video content including one or more video frames, running one or more machine-learning classifiers on the one or more video frames to create classification metadata, the classification metadata corresponding to the one or more machine-learning classifiers and one or more probability scores associated with the classification metadata, creating one or more interaction triggers based on a set of rules[*Examiner notes: determining interaction conditions based on the predicted output], determining that a condition for triggering at least one of the triggers is met, and triggering the one or more actions with regard to the video content based on the determination, the classification metadata, and the probability score.”; (paragraph [0047]) “In some embodiments, the condition refers to, or is associated with, an entry point […] Particularly, each of the entry points can include one or more of the following: a pause of the video content, a jump point of the video content, a bookmark of the video content, a location marker of the video content, changes in user environment detected by connected sensor, and a search result associated with the video content[*Examiner notes: navigation-specific interaction conditions].”
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan, Xiao, and further in view of R et al. (PGPUB no. US20210142196A1) herein referred to as R.
Regarding Claim 10
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao teaches:
The method of claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao does not explicitly teach:
wherein the plurality of attributes further comprise one or more global historical interaction attributes that indicate measured past extents of past interactions, with previous related content interface notifications, responsive to previous renderings of the previous related content interface notifications for past accesses, by a plurality of client devices, of the Internet resource and/or of additional Internet resources determined to be similar to the Internet resource.
However, R teaches:
wherein the plurality of attributes further comprise one or more global historical interaction attributes that indicate measured past extents of past interactions, with previous related content interface notifications, responsive to previous renderings of the previous related content interface notifications for past accesses, by a plurality of client devices, of the Internet resource and/or of additional Internet resources determined to be similar to the Internet resource.
[*Examiner notes: The broadest reasonable interpretation of “global historical interaction” is interpreted in light of specification paragraph 41 which recites “Further, the historical interaction attribute(s) engine134 can determine global historical interaction attribute(s) for a given Internet resource based on measured past extents of past interactions, by a plurality of additional users (i.e., that are in addition to the user of the client device110), with previous related content interface notifications for the given Internet resource.”]; (paragraph [0033]) “As an example, for each event and corresponding digital content item, the interaction database 110 b can store data such as a identifier for the digital content item, an identifier of the user and/or client computing device 102, 103 on which the digital content item was presented[*Examiner notes: responsive to previous renderings], a timestamp of when the digital content item was presented, and a response from the user and/or client computing device 102, 103 with respect to the digital content item (e.g., click, view time, scroll time, etc.)[*Examiner notes: mapped to past extents of past interactions]”; (paragraph [0046]) “Turning back to FIG. 2, the user analysis module 106 a generates (204) a multidimensional user context vector associated with each user of a plurality of users[*Examiner notes: mapped to global historical interaction attributes] (e.g., users that have previously used the content recommendation system to be presented with digital content items[*Examiner notes: mapped to previous content interface notifications] on their client devices and provided feedback on those items)”
Rojas-Echenique, Mohan, Xiao, R, and the instant application are analogous because they are all directed to provision of content to a user and/or machine learning.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the content recommendation of Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao with the historical attributes taught by R because (paragraph [0005]) “The techniques described herein can be advantageously applied to: Personalize recommendation of digital content to specific users, based on the user's topics of interest at that point in time, the user's preference with respect to similar digital content items shown in the past, and the user's indication of feedback to digital content items; Increase content engagement of the users; Improve click rates based on the recommendation of digital content items on various pages of a website; Self-learn and adapt the prediction model based on the learned experiences of the user's responses over time.”
Regarding Claim 11
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao teaches:
The method of claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao does not explicitly teach:
wherein the plurality of attributes further comprise one or more personal historical interaction attributes that indicate measured past extents of past interactions, by a user of the given client device, with previous related content interface notifications.
However, R teaches:
wherein the plurality of attributes further comprise one or more personal historical interaction attributes that indicate measured past extents of past interactions, by a user of the given client device, with previous related content interface notifications.
(paragraph [0033]) “As an example, for each event and corresponding digital content item, the interaction database 110 b can store data such as a identifier for the digital content item, an identifier of the user and/or client computing device 102, 103 on which the digital content item was presented[*Examiner notes: responsive to previous renderings], a timestamp of when the digital content item was presented, and a response from the user and/or client computing device 102, 103 with respect to the digital content item (e.g., click, view time, scroll time, etc.)[*Examiner notes: mapped to past extents of past interactions]”; (paragraph [0046]) “As mentioned above, the user profile information[*Examiner notes: mapped to personal historical interaction] for each user can include financial information/demographic information of the user, historical user interaction data relating to digital content items presented to the user[*Examiner notes: mapped to previous content interface notifications], and historical user digital content item consumption information”
Rojas-Echenique, Mohan, Xiao, R, and the instant application are analogous because they are all directed to machine learning.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the content recommendation of Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao with the historical attributes taught by R because (paragraph [0005]) “The techniques described herein can be advantageously applied to: Personalize recommendation of digital content to specific users, based on the user's topics of interest at that point in time, the user's preference with respect to similar digital content items shown in the past, and the user's indication of feedback to digital content items; Increase content engagement of the users; Improve click rates based on the recommendation of digital content items on various pages of a website; Self-learn and adapt the prediction model based on the learned experiences of the user's responses over time.”
Regarding Claim 12:
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan, Xiao, and R teaches:
The method of claim 11
(see rejection of claim 11)
And R further teaches:
wherein the measured past extents of past interactions are with previous related content interface notifications for past accesses of additional Internet resources determined to be similar to the Internet resource
(paragraph [0005]) “The techniques described herein can be advantageously applied to:
Personalize recommendation of digital content to specific users, based on the user's topics of interest at that point in time, the user's preference with respect to similar digital content items shown in the past, and the user's indication of feedback to digital content items”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine Rojas-Echenique, Mohan, and Xiao with R for the same reasons given in claim 11 above.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan, Xiao, and further in view of NPL reference Zou et al. “Reinforcement Learning to Optimize Long-term User Engagement in Recommender Systems” herein referred to as Zou.
Regarding Claim 15
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao teaches:
The method of claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more interaction conditions comprise a duration of the access of the Internet resource
However, Zou teaches:
wherein the one or more interaction conditions comprise a duration of the access of the Internet resource
(page 2812 column 2) “The delayed metrics include browsing depth, dwell time on the system, user revisit, etc. Such metrics are usually adopted for measuring long-term user engagement. The delayed metrics are triggered by previous behaviors, some of which even hold long-term dependency”
Rojas-Echenique, Mohan, Xiao, Zou, and the instant application are analogous because they are all directed to provision of content to a user and/or machine learning.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the content recommendation of Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao with the duration of access interaction condition taught by Zou because (Zou page 2810 abstract) “Extensive experiments on both synthetic datasets and real-world e-commerce dataset have demonstrated effectiveness of FeedRec for feed streaming recommendation”
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan, Xiao and further in view of Takami (Patent no. US9251526B2) herein referred to as Takami.
Regarding Claim 16
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao teaches:
The method of claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more interaction conditions comprise a scrolling condition that indicates whether, during access of the Internet resource, scrolling has occurred, an extent of the scrolling, a speed of the scrolling, or a direction of the scrolling
However, Takami teaches:
wherein the one or more interaction conditions comprise a scrolling condition that indicates whether, during access of the Internet resource, scrolling has occurred, an extent of the scrolling, a speed of the scrolling, or a direction of the scrolling
(column 2 last paragraph) “According to this invention, the height of the degree of interest is determined by the fast speed or the slow speed of the scroll operation by the user, so that it is possible to determine a highly accurate degree of interest during a scroll operation as a normal operation while the user is unaware.”; Figure 7
PNG
media_image2.png
432
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rojas-Echenique, Mohan, Xiao, Takami, and the instant application are analogous because they are all directed to content recommendation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the content suggestions of Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao with the scrolling interaction condition taught by Takami because (Takami column 2 last paragraph) “According to this invention, the height of the degree of interest is determined by the fast speed or the slow speed of the scroll operation by the user, so that it is possible to determine a highly accurate degree of interest during a scroll operation as a normal operation while the user is unaware.”
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan, Xiao, and further in view of NPL reference Srinivasan et al. “RuleSelector: Selecting Conditional Action Rules from User Behavior Patterns”.
Regarding Claim 17
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao teaches:
The method of claim 1
(see rejection of claim 1)
Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more interaction conditions comprise at least two interaction conditions, and wherein access of the Internet resource satisfies the one or more interaction conditions only when each of the at least two interaction conditions are satisfied
However, Srinivasan teaches:
wherein the one or more interaction conditions comprise at least two interaction conditions, and wherein access of the Internet resource satisfies the one or more interaction conditions only when each of the at least two interaction conditions are satisfied
Figure 1b; [*Examiner notes: The at least two interaction conditions can be, in the examples below, in the office in mountain view and battery level is less than 50% (among other things).]
PNG
media_image3.png
353
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Rojas-Echenique, Mohan, Xiao, Srinivasan, and the instant application are analogous because they are all directed to machine learning.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the content recommendation as taught by Rojas-Echenique in view of Mohan and Xiao with the at least two conditions as taught by Srinivasan because (Srinivasan page 32 paragraph 1) “Conditional action rules, as popularized by the IFTTT (If-This-Then-That) platform, are a popular way for users to automate frequently repeated tasks or receive smart reminders, due to the intelligibility and control that rules provide to users.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ezra J Baker whose telephone number is (703)756-1087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 8:00 pm 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, David Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519. 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.
/E.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2126
/DAVID YI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights