DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is responsive to claims filed 4/16/2025. Claims 1-23 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
[AltContent: textbox (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.)]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:
Claim(s) 1-10, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (US 20130054371 A1) in view of Griffiths ("Reconciling versioning and context in hypermedia structure servers", published 2003).
Regarding claim 1, Mason discloses: a method for generating a hyperlink in real-time, comprising:
monitoring a user’s interaction with a document via algorithms of a hyperlink generation engine implemented at a processor of a client system (figs.5I-5J gives overview of the process, including a client-side agent 520 (0142-0145) responsible for “hooking” keywords so as to provide an interactive, on-hover tooltip or overlay (0145, fig.5J:550), the tooltip including a web beacon that tracks a user’s usage and interactions with the tooltip (0155-156), hence, a user’s interaction with the web document is monitored via code algorithms that dynamically generate hyperlink hooks at the client);
displaying a first hyperlink in the document at a user interface of a display device based on the user’s interaction (fig.5I:522, 524, 0145-147: client-side code (agent, web beacon) communicates with server code including a keyword ranker and matcher that provides keyword weightings based on user behavioral profile such as tracked interactions (0155-156, as above) in order to match keywords in the document, hence, the matched keywords are hyperlinked or hooked based on tracked user interactions in the behavioral profile);
querying a dataset in real time when the user is interacting with the document to place a second hyperlink in the document during a subsequent hyperlink generation event (0126: agent runs in background while the user is browsing, the agent communicating with the server platform to generate relevant hyperlink generation events, these events potentially occurring at a later time); wherein one or more of an anchor and destination of the second hyperlink are determined by real-time monitoring of user behavior (figs.5E-F, 0130-133 contemplates real-time monitoring of user behavior, such as of clicks, views (0131), see also fig.5J, 0155 for live tracking of user usage and interactions, the monitoring determining a personalized presentation of hyperlink keywords, hence, determining anchor and destination of hyperlinks via real-time monitoring).
Mason does not disclose: after displaying the first hyperlink, mapping an anchor and an associated destination of the first hyperlink to generate a dataset including the anchor and the associated destination.
Griffiths discloses: after displaying the first hyperlink, mapping an anchor and an associated destination of the first hyperlink to generate a dataset including the anchor and the associated destination (1. “Introduction”: “[Contextual structure servers] dynamically generate different views of a complex structure (such as a hypermedia linkbase) according to the context of the viewer … allowing for a user-specific view according to the user’s location in an n-dimensional context space” gives a background of dynamic link generation via OHP (Open Hypermedia Protocol) or FOHM (Fundamental Open Hypermedia Model), i.e., that of querying linkbases to augment pages with links, thereby separating hyperlink and document, thereby allowing for unique link presentations according to reader context expressed as an n-dimensional vector; see also 3. “Alternative Versioning Strategies”, fig.1: background of linked structures stored in a queryable database, including link patterns and associated destinations (fig.1), hence, combination with Mason yielding these patterns being anchors or keywords in a document matched to destinations; 5. “How would versioning work in practice?” describes earlier and later versions of linkbase structures tagged with different version numbers; hence, Griffith discloses that linkbase structures or datasets containing anchor-destination pairs may be mapped or tagged with version numbers to generate a versioned dataset, the versioned dataset used to place later hyperlinks during future link generation events or queries, these updates occurring during the course of use during versioning, hence, after an initial display / hyperlink query).
Regarding claim 2, Mason modified by Griffiths discloses the method of claim 1, as described above. Mason modified by Griffiths further discloses: wherein monitoring the user’s interaction with the document includes tracking a position of a mouse cursor (Mason 0155-156: tracking mouse interactions with keywords, hence, tracking mouse position and duration as being over the tooltip and augmented text).
Regarding claim 3, Mason modified by Griffiths discloses the method of claim 2, as described above. Mason further discloses: wherein displaying the first hyperlink includes inserting the first hyperlink at one of a word or a section of the document where the mouse cursor hovers for a period of time (fig.5J, 0155-156, fig.4A-E shows tooltip containing various links being inserted based on a mouse hover at4ion) and wherein the first hyperlink is inserted as a single link or as multiple links, respectively (fig.4A-E gives overview, with fig.4C-E, 0112-114 describing linking behavior for multiple links).
Regarding claim 4, Mason modified by Griffiths discloses the method of claim 1, as described above. Mason further discloses: wherein displaying the first hyperlink includes anchoring the first hyperlink to a document element relevant to a topic of interest to the user (0119, fig.4A-E, fig.fig.5E-F, 0130-133, 0147-148, 0155-156 describing tracking of user interest via behavioral profile).
Regarding claim 5, Mason modified by Griffiths discloses the method of claim 1, as described above. Mason further discloses: wherein displaying the first hyperlink includes modifying a presentation of the first hyperlink (0107: the presentation is modified to distinguish from conventional hyperlinks).
Regarding claim 6, Mason modified by Griffiths discloses the method of claim 5, as described above. Mason further discloses: wherein modifying the presentation of the first hyperlink includes one or more of adjusting an appearance (0107, as above) of the first hyperlink and linking the first hyperlink to a list of destinations (fig.4D-E, 0112-114: linking the hyperlink to a list of destinations based on ranking 0109).
Regarding claim 7, Mason modified by Griffiths discloses the method of claim 6, as described above. Mason modified by Griffiths modified by Hamm further discloses: wherein linking the first hyperlink to the list of destinations includes querying a database of hyperlink destinations and generating the list of destinations according to a number of matches found in the database of hyperlink destinations (Mason fig.2, 0075, fig.3A, 0082-85): querying a reference database storing relevant ads, types, etc., hence, the list is generated based on a number of matches found; Griffiths 3. “Alternative Versioning Strategies”, fig.1: querying databases with keyword patterns and user context in order to retrieve relevant matches for link augmentation in a document), and wherein the list of destinations is displayed when the user interacts with the first hyperlink (Mason fig.4A-E, 0109-114).
Regarding claim 8, Mason modified by Griffiths discloses the method of claim 7, as described above. Mason further discloses: wherein the list of destinations is displayed according to a ranking of relevancy (0109).
Regarding claim 9, Mason modified by Griffiths discloses the method of claim 1, as described above. Mason further discloses: wherein mapping the anchor and the associated destination of the first hyperlink includes extracting data from the document using a web scraper (fig.5A:502, 0121, 0126; fig. 5B:506, content from the page is scraped and analyzed to determine relevant campaigns, hence, Note: 0126 refers to fig.5A but fig.5B is intended; fig.6A, 0182-183: extracting elements for determining anchor, linked content by analyzing or scraping / harvesting content from linked pages, tags, non-displayed data, etc.).
Regarding claim 10, Mason modified by Griffiths discloses the method of claim 9, as described above. Mason modified by Griffiths further discloses: wherein extracting the data from the document using the web scraper includes generating the dataset based on the extracted data (Mason 0121: generating relevancy data for keywords; Mason 0183: generating keywords and content for augmentation, e.g., linked content, from the keywords during content harvesting, hence, combination with Griffith yielding generating the stored dataset based on the extracted data) and converting the dataset to a format usable by different software programs (Mason fig.5A-B, 0121, 0126: the dataset containing the keywords is sent back to the agent, the agent operating via various software programs such as described in 0142, e.g., JavaScript interpreter, browser plugin or add-on, installed software, Griffiths section 3: different software programs, e.g., client-side browsers, for querying remote content).
Regarding claim 23, Mason modified by Griffiths discloses the method of claim 6, as described above. Mason further discloses: wherein the list of destinations is created from websites covering topics similar to a topic of the document (Since keywords anchors are generated from pre-existing text on the website, the augmented links would link to websites having a similar topic; see fig.4C showing the similar topic being web security (link showing web security, website being about virus help), see also 0084 contemplating the use of not only keywords but fuzzy experts to ensure that links are contextually related to the content of the source)
Claim(s) 11-14, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (US 20130054371 A1) in view of Griffiths ("Reconciling versioning and context in hypermedia structure servers", published 2003) in view of Ziraknejad (US 20200226195 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Mason discloses: a system for automatically generating a hyperlink in real-time, comprising:
a document displayed at a display device (fig.5I, 5J: 517: web document); and
a processor, communicatively coupled to the display device and configured with executable instructions stored in non-transitory memory that, when executed, cause the processor (fig.1B-C: 101, 122) to:
monitor a user’s interaction with the document (figs.5I-5J gives overview of the process, including a client-side agent 520 (0142-0145) responsible for “hooking” keywords so as to provide an interactive, on-hover tooltip or overlay (0145, fig.5J:550), the tooltip including a web beacon that tracks a user’s usage and interactions with the tooltip (0155-156), hence, a user’s interaction with the web document is monitored via code algorithms that dynamically generate hyperlink hooks at the client);
adjust a location and an appearance of the hyperlink in the document for the user based on the user’s interaction with the document (fig. 5I, 0146-147, 0155-156 as above: keyword anchors are mapped to generate tooltips (fig.5J); user interaction with tooltips are tracked via the web beacon to generate user behavioral profiles for subsequent generations via the keyword ranker, matcher (fig.5I:522, 0146), hence, locations and appearances of hyperlinks in the document are adjusted based on prior user interactions, the presentation being for the user; as the user may revisit the document, prior tracked interactions such as described above and in figs.5E-F, 0130-133 are used to place future generations of the document);
display the hyperlink at the display device with the adjusted location and the adjusted appearance (fig.5I-J, as above).
Mason does not disclose: after the location and the appearance of the hyperlink in the document is adjusted, map an anchor and an associated a destination of the adjusted hyperlink and add a mapped relationship of the anchor and associated the destination to a text-to-destination map by either changing a linkable text or a URL of the hyperlink;
use the mapped relationship in the text-to-destination map to determine locations and appearances for display of new and/or modified hyperlinks;
wherein the adjusting takes place using machine learning.
Griffiths discloses: after the location and the appearance of the hyperlink in the document is adjusted (Griffiths §5: “How would versioning work in practice?” contemplates updating linkbase with newer / modified versions of link-destination maps (see §3 fig.1), hence, updates are made in the course of use after any adjustments are made, such as based on variances in user context (see §1)), map an anchor and an associated a destination of the adjusted hyperlink and add a mapped relationship of the anchor and associated the destination to a text-to-destination map (Griffith §5: A new version of the mapped anchor and destination tagged with a version number is added to the link structures in the linkbase) by either changing a linkable text or the URL of the hyperlink (Griffith §2.1 contemplates various changes that different versions could contain including nodes, anchors, endpoints, and link objects (1.), see fig.1 for a visualization of a link object, hence, all aspects of a link may be changed including the text anchor and the URL destination);
use the mapped relationship in the text-to-destination map to determine locations and appearances for display of new and/or modified hyperlinks (Griffiths 3: the linkbase is queried for future link generation events to return updated or new hyperlinks).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mason by incorporating the link versioning technique of Mason. Both concern the art of providing links in a hypermedia document via link database queries, and the incorporation would have, according to Griffiths, met a long standing tradition or need, provide a baseline in case of errors, allow for rollback in case of errors, allow for greater ease of collaboration, allow for a record of history such as in legal or audit settings (1. Introduction).
Mason modified by Griffiths does not disclose: wherein the adjusting takes place using machine learning.
Ziraknejad discloses: wherein the adjusting takes place using machine learning (0046-47: using machine learning models to estimates of destination relevancy).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mason by incorporating the machine learning technique of Ziraknejad. Both concern the art of providing relevant contextual links, and the incorporation would have, according to Ziraknejad, improve prediction of relevancy via training based on prior user behavior data, user interface elements, etc. (0046).
Regarding claim 12, Mason modified by Griffiths modified by Ziraknejad discloses the method of claim 11, as described above. Mason further discloses: wherein the user’s interaction with the document is monitored by collecting user behavior data regarding one or more of scrolling, clicking, navigation patterns, engagement and sharing, heat maps, session recordings, feedback widgets, and surveys (0155-156: collecting user clicking, hover with keyword (hence, navigation patterns, engagement patterns)).
Regarding claim 13, Mason modified by Griffiths modified by Ziraknejad discloses the method of claim 11, as described above. Mason modified by Griffiths further discloses: wherein the location of the hyperlink is adjusted by adding and/or removing the hyperlink as the user interacts with the document (fig.5B:504-508, 0126: analysis and adding the links as the user browses; Griffiths §1: updating user context based on interaction history).
Regarding claim 14, Mason modified by Griffiths modified by Ziraknejad discloses the method of claim 11, as described above. Mason modified by Griffiths further discloses: wherein the appearance of the hyperlink is adjusted by using a set of rules and predetermined conditions input by the user (Mason 0096: viewers setting their preferences, hence, setting by user of preference rules governing hyperlink appearance behavior, part of these preferences also being predetermined conditions determined by the user for generating hyperlinks; Griffiths section 1: acquiring user inputs and predetermined conditions such as age, expertise, interaction history, goals), the set of rules and predetermined conditions providing instructions for displaying the hyperlink, and wherein the set of rules includes instructions for one or more of a font, a color, a typeface, a font size, an action, a linking of a style and/or action to a specific type of the hyperlink (Mason 0096: video preference constitutes hyperlink style; ), a linking of the hyperlink to a specific destination (Griffiths section 1, section 3: variation of the user context would cause updating of link destination), and the predetermined conditions include a type of user behavior to trigger adjustment of the location and the appearance of the hyperlink (Griffiths section 1: user interaction history, adjustments to profile (age, expertise, goals) constitute various types of user behavior; Mason 0096: preference setting constitutes a type of user behavior).
Regarding claim 16, Mason modified by Griffiths modified by modified by Ziraknejad discloses the method of claim 14, as described above. Mason modified by Griffiths modified by Ziraknejad further discloses: wherein the appearance of the hyperlink is adjusted by using the set of rules (Mason 0096; Griffiths section 1: updating user context based on prior interactions, user profile), the set of rules determined using machine learning and artificial intelligence techniques (Ziraknejad 0046-47: using machine learning and AI techniques to determine relevant documents based on analysis of user behavior and interface elements) to select variables of the set of rules to optimize the set of rules for the user for a specific website (Mason figs.5E-G describe tailoring hyperlink provision to optimize for user relevancy / behavior, Griffiths section 1, combination with Ziraknejad yielding a technique where the appropriate variables, such as encoded in the machine learning models, are optimized for the user during presentation).
Regarding claim 17, Mason modified by Griffiths modified by Ziraknejad discloses the method of claim 14, as described above. Mason modified by Griffiths further discloses: insert the hyperlink into the document using an HTML parser according to the set of rules, prior to the display of the hyperlink (0139: display of HTML pages, such as shown in figs.4A-D, hence, an HTML parser is used to determine the location of the keyword anchor, modify the appearance of the anchor, and insert the relevant tooltip 460 prior to display of the hyperlink).
Claim(s) 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (US 20130054371 A1) in view of Griffiths ("Reconciling versioning and context in hypermedia structure servers", published 2003) in view of Ziraknejad (US 20200226195 A1) in view of Bryar (US 7890850 B1).
Regarding claim 15, Mason modified by Griffiths modified by modified by Ziraknejad discloses the method of claim 14, as described above. Mason modified by Griffiths modified by modified by Ziraknejad does not discloses: wherein when the appearance of the hyperlink is adjusted by the action, the hyperlink is modified to perform one or more of flashing, changing color, fading, and moving.
Bryar discloses: wherein when the appearance of the hyperlink is adjusted by the action, the hyperlink is modified to perform one or more of flashing, changing color, fading, and moving (c.2:50: adjusting prominence of a link by changing its color such as based on user behavior profile, see fig.5).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mason modified by Griffiths by incorporating the link appearance changing technique of Bryar. Both concern the art of provision of link display and augmentation, and the incorporation would have, according to Bryar, improved user experience by indicating links of greater interest or novelty with greater prominence (c.1:55-c.2:15).
Claim(s) 18-20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (US 20130054371 A1) in view of Griffiths ("Reconciling versioning and context in hypermedia structure servers", published 2003) in view of Nocedal (US 20200134255 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Mason discloses: a method for dynamically inserting a hyperlink into a document, comprising:
generating a text-to-destination map using a hyperlink generation engine implemented at a processor to provide guidelines for hyperlink placement (fig.6A-B, 0182-187: content scraper implemented at the server harvests content from pages and linked pages in order to generate keyword / anchor-content pairs, with figs.1B-C showing processor implementations);
using the text-to-destination map in combination with monitored user behavior (figs. 5F-G, 0131-134: mappings are weighted and modified via behavioral data; 0145-148: the text-to-destination map is used in combination with behavioral profiles; 0094-96: user click behavior, identity, user preference behavior for generation of hyperlinks such as figs.4A-D) to insert the hyperlink into the document (fig. 4A-D show screenshots of inserted hyperlinks)); and
displaying the hyperlink at a display device when the user scrolls to a region of the document with the hyperlink (figs.3:370-375, fig.5:504-508, 0126: analysis is triggered when a website is loaded and occurs in the background while a user browses the web page; 0253: providing of content during scrolling).
Mason does not expressly disclose: the text-to-destination map storing relationships and associations between anchors and associated destinations of previously generated hyperlinks; outputting the text-to-destination map in a format accessible by software programs;
continuously update and modify the hyperlink in upcoming sections of the document based on previous placements as a user interacts with the document
Griffiths discloses: the text-to-destination map storing relationships and associations between anchors and associated destinations of previously generated hyperlinks (Griffiths section 3: storing previously generated links in a linkbase); outputting the text-to-destination map in a format accessible by software programs (ibid: outputting results upon query such as from a user client or browser; combination with Mason fig.5A-B, 0121, 0126 (the dataset containing the keywords is sent back to the agent, the agent operating via various software programs such as described in 0142, e.g., JavaScript interpreter, browser plugin or add-on, installed software) disclosing accessibility with the various disclosed software).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mason by incorporating the link versioning technique of Mason. Both concern the art of providing links in a hypermedia document via link database queries, and the incorporation would have, according to Griffiths, met a long standing tradition or need, provide a baseline in case of errors, allow for rollback in case of errors, allow for greater ease of collaboration, allow for a record of history such as in legal or audit settings (1. Introduction).
Mason modified by Griffiths does not disclose the remaining limitations.
Nocedal discloses: continuously update and modify the hyperlink in upcoming sections of the document based on previous placements as a user interacts with the document (fig.6, 0151-158: hyperlinks are adjusted based on prior first placements for future placements based on user document navigation (scroll, navigate, zoom) for future additional and upcoming sections).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mason by incorporating the hyperlink relocation technique of Nocedal. Both concern the art of providing links in a hypermedia document, and the incorporation would have, according to Nocedal, improve compatibility of dynamic HTML elements (0003).
Regarding claim 19, Mason modified by Griffiths modified by Nocedal discloses the method of claim 18, as described above. Mason modified by Griffiths further discloses: wherein generating the text-to-destination map includes analyzing a webpage using a web scraper to identify linkable text (fig.5A:502, 0121, 0126; fig. 5B:506, content from the page is scraped and analyzed to determine relevant campaigns; fig.6A-B, 0182-187: using a content harvester / scraper in order to identify page context to identify anchor and linked text) and extract alt text from the linkable text, and mapping the linkable text and the alt text to a corresponding destination (0191-195: extracting alt text from the total text, e.g., from anchors and other attributes of linkable text such as hyperlinks in order to determine context to determine optimal mapping; 0182-183: extracting alt text from the total text in order to determine keywords and content, hence, mapping alt text to corresponding keywords and destinations).
Regarding claim 20, Mason modified by Griffiths modified by Nocedal discloses the method of claim 18, as described above. Mason modified by Griffiths further discloses: wherein generating the text-to-destination map further includes collecting meta data of the document to generate a record for the text-to-destination map (Mason fig.6A: extended content harvesting considers additional page metadata including alt tags, header tags; see also 0223-246 disclosing other metadata; Griffith section 3, fig.1: storing queryable versioned records of the text-to-destination map in a linkbase).
Regarding claim 22, Mason modified by Griffiths modified by Nocedal discloses the method of claim 18, as described above. Mason modified by Griffiths further discloses: wherein the text-to-destination map is configured to group text and destinations into topics (Griffiths section 3, fig.1, section 5: links in the linkbase are grouped into groups based on similarity of topic, e.g., queried keyword, the groups containing various factors such as context (adult / child, see fig.1), version number (section 5)).
Claim(s) 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (US 20130054371 A1) in view of Griffiths ("Reconciling versioning and context in hypermedia structure servers", published 2003) in view of Longpradit ("Links Personalisation with Multi-Dimensional Linkbases", published 6/1/2007).
Regarding claim 21, Mason modified by Griffiths discloses the method of claim 1, as described above. Mason modified by Griffiths does not disclose the limitations of claim 21.
Longpradit discloses: wherein the associated destination is of the same electronic text file as an electronic text file of the anchor, or in a different electronic text file from the electronic text file of the anchor, the different electronic text file included in a same website as the anchor, the website formed of one or more electronic text files (p.47-48 discloses linking within the same site using open hypermedia concepts based on multi-dimensional user context, the website being made of electronic text html files).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mason modified by Griffiths by incorporating the linking technique of Longpradit. Both concern the art of provision of auxiliary recommended user content during browsing, and the incorporation would have, according to Longpradit, to effectively present lessons to users based on user context, e.g., expertise (p.47).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. In the remarks, Applicant argues:
For claim 1, Griffiths is silent as to the placement of hyperlinks as occurring in real time. Mason merely describes an agent running in the background. Mason’s mentioning of real-time monitoring in 0155-156 are only configured to allow third parties to collect information with respect to who is interacting with the advertisement, and do not consider any real-time monitoring being used to place a second hyperlink.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figs. 5E-F discloses the use of user behavior profiles to update matches, the behavior profiles being based on real-time user behavior, such as clicks, views, and the tracking of figs.5J, 0155, hence, real-time monitoring to place additional hyperlinks based on user behavior profile matching, as claimed.
In contrast, 0063 considers an instance where sections of text of interest to the user by mouse over duration informs hyperlinks generated in subsequent sections.
Examiner appreciates the difference between in-session updating and real-time monitoring to update subsequent sessions. However, further clarification is needed exclude the currently applied reference. Attention is also drawn to Nocedal (US 20200134255 A1) applied to claim 18 as relevant for contemplating in-session hyperlink relocation based on user view adjustments (scrolling, resizing, etc.).
For claim 3, cited portions of Mason only provide for the tooltip appearing a t the augmented keyword and a web beacon tracking a user’s interaction with the tooltip to provide information to a third party, not as to the interaction being used to determine the word or segment to insert the augmented keyword.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the tooltip appearing based on user hovering constitutes an inserting of a first hyperlink, as claimed. Further clarification is needed to reach Applicant’s intended scope.
For claim 9, at best, the scraping process of Mason finds potential anchors in a hyperlink, not mapping an anchor and an associated destination for a first hyperlink. Mason is concerned only with adding hyperlinked ads to a webpage, not with any existing hyperlinks that may have already been on the webpage when it is scraped for keywords.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Mason 0121, 126 discloses a using a web scraper to assist in understanding keywords and their context. Such a process would be included in the overall process of mapping or associating an anchor and a destination of the keyword. Further clarification is needed to associate such a scraping process explicitly with the generation of a dataset to place the second hyperlink.
For claim 11, the art of record is silent as to the use of machine learning to adjust the location and appearance of the hyperlink based on the user’s interactions with the document.
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of newly cited art.
For claim 18, the art of record is silent as to the continuous updating and modifying of hyperlinks in upcoming sections of the document based on previous placements as a user interacts with the document.
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of newly cited art.
For claim 16, Golbandi does not teach using machine learning for adjusting a location and appearance of the hyperlink.
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of newly cited art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. White (US 20130246383 A1) discloses tracking cursor activity to enhance search result presentation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG LI whose telephone number is (303)297-4263. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 6:30a-11:30a 2:30p-5:00p MT (8:30a-1:30p 4:30p-7:00p ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Jennifer Welch, can be reached on (571)272-7212. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/LIANG LI/
Primary examiner AU 2143