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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed on 10/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-17 and 20-22 are pending. Claims 21-22 are newly added. Claims 1-2, 4-17 and 20 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15, 17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klevenz et al. (Klevenz), US Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0095197, in view of Sahota et al. (Sahota), US Patent Application Publication No. US 2001/0056460 and further in view of Keyser et al. (Keyser), US Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0292146 A1.
As to independent claim 1, Klevenz discloses a method for generating personalized web content, the method comprising:
receiving content management system (CMS) data associated with a web page, wherein the web page includes a set of elements (paragraphs [0003], [0027], [0041 and Figure 5J: Web Content Management System (WCMS) providing templates in HTML or XML files for generating/editing/designing a webpage, which includes a set of elements) ;
for one or more elements included in the set of elements, generating a page construction item based on the CMS data, wherein each page construction item indicates a structure of a different element included in the web page (paragraphs [0042]-[0043], [0062]-[0063]: generating/designing a page with different item);
for one or more elements included in the set of elements, generating a page content item based on the CMS data, wherein each page content item indicates a content of a different element included in the web page (paragraphs [0043]-[0044], [0062]-[0067]: inserting content into the page); and
storing one or more of the page construction items and one or more of the page content items in memory as separate items in association with the web page, wherein a content interface associated with the web page is generated for display based at least on the one or more page construction items and the one or more page content items (Figures 5G-5J, paragraphs [0042]-[0046], [0063], [0070]: storing the designed page and content for display the web page with the content).
Klevenz, however, does not disclose for each element in the set of elements, translating a portion of the CMS data associated with the element into corresponding content platform data based on an element type of the element, wherein the content platform data corresponding to each element in the set of elements is of a content platform data format different from a format of the CMS data; generating a page construction items based on the content platform data corresponding to the set of elements; for one or more elements included in the set of elements, generating a page content item representing one or more portions of content data included in the CMS data; and storing one or more of the page construction items and one or more of the page content items in memory as separate items in association with the web page.
Sahota discloses disclose for each element in the set of elements, translating a portion of the CMS data associated with the element into corresponding content platform data based on an element type of the element, wherein the content platform data corresponding to each element in the set of elements is of a content platform data format different from a format of the CMS data; and generating one or more page construction items based on the content platform data corresponding to the set of elements (Sahota, paragraphs [0067]-[0069]: transforming XML file to display webpage in HTML, PDF or XML).
In addition, Keyser discloses a system for editing content of a content management system (CMS) includes providing an editor application that provides an interface for composing a content page (page construction item) in the CMS, wherein the content page is associated with a plurality of content components (page content items) referenced in the content page which are arranged in accordance with a logical hierarchy defined for the content page (Abstract). Keyser further discloses in paragraph [0058] that content generally consists of content items, which can be of various types, for examples, types of content items include text, images, audio, video, data values, and content items are typically stored as data structures in the CMS (e.g., JSON data structures containing text, metadata, links, tags, etc.). Keyser further discloses in paragraph [0059] that each of these content items can be separately stored and independently delivered as needed to suit different contexts of presentation. Keyser further discloses in paragraphs [0088]-[0090] that the concept of a page in the CMS is a set of data structures defined and stored in the CMS that identifies and organizes a collection of content, wherein a CMS page is defined by a page definition entry, a page content entry that is referenced by the page definition entry and additional entries further referenced by the page content entry, which compose the content for the CMS page. Keyser further discloses in paragraph [0091] that the page content entry can reference several component entries 306, 310 and 314, wherein each component entry includes one or more fields and these fields may directly contain content or reference content such as assets/media or reference additional entries. Keyser further discloses in Figure 5 and paragraphs [0114]-[0116]: an example collection of entries that collectively define an example CMS content page in a CMS, and a plurality of content types that define a content model for the CMS page, and page content entry and component content type, wherein the page content entry and content types are stored separately.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Sahota and Keyser with the systems of Klevenz to include for each element in the set of elements, translating a portion of the CMS data associated with the element into corresponding content platform data based on an element type of the element, wherein the content platform data corresponding to each element in the set of elements is of a content platform data format different from a format of the CMS data; generating a page construction items based on the content platform data corresponding to the set of elements; for one or more elements included in the set of elements, generating a page content item representing one or more portions of content data included in the CMS data; and storing one or more of the page construction items and one or more of the page content items in memory as separate items in association with the web page, for the purpose of updating content components easily.
As to dependent claim 2, Klevenz discloses wherein a first page construction item corresponds to a first element included in the web page, and generating the first page construction item further comprises determining a structure of the first element based on a portion of the content platform data associated with the first element (Figure 5D, paragraph [0004]: web page includes static or dynamic content).
As to dependent claim 3, Klevenz discloses wherein a first page construction item corresponds to a first element included in the web page (Figure 5). Klevenz, however, does not disclose the content platform data format is defined by a domain-specific language (DSL).
Sahota discloses the content platform data format is defined by a domain-specific language (Sahota, paragraphs [0067]-[0069]: transforming XML file to display webpage in HTML, PDF or XML).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Klevenz to include the content platform data format is defined by a domain-specific language, as taught by Sahota since the combination would have facilitated the design and presentation of webpage content in specific format as Sahota disclosed.
As to dependent claim 4, Klevenz discloses wherein a first page construction item corresponds to a first element included in the web page (Figure 5D), wherein generating the first page construction item comprises:
determining that the first element is a dynamic element (paragraphs [0064]-[0067]: determining dynamic item);
determining one or more content generation parameters associated with the first element based on a portion of the content platform data associated with the first element (paragraphs [0064]-[0067]: associating metadata structure to the item in the web page); and
including, in the first page construction item, the one or more content generation parameters (paragraphs [0064]-[0067], [0070]: associating metadata structure to the item in the web page).
As to dependent claim 5, Klevenz discloses wherein a first page construction item corresponds to a first element included in the web page (Figure 5D), wherein generating the first page construction item comprises:
determining that the first element is a dynamic element (paragraphs [0064]-[0067]: determining dynamic item);
determining a dynamic content type associated with the first element based on a portion of the content platform data associated with the first element (paragraphs [0064]-[0067]: associating metadata structure to the item in the web page); and
including, in the first page construction item, the dynamic content type associated with the first element (paragraphs [0064]-[0067], [0070]: associating metadata structure to the item in the web page).
As to dependent claim 7, Klevenz discloses wherein a first page construction item corresponds to a first element included in the web page, a first page content item corresponds to first content data included in the first element (Figures 5D, 5G), and wherein generating the first page construction item comprises:
determining that the first element includes the first content data based on a portion of the content platform data associated with the first element (paragraph [0070]: dynamic content based on metadata structure associated with an item);
including, in the first page construction item, an identifier associated with the first page content item (paragraph [0070]: identifier of image associated with the item).
As to dependent claim 8, Klevenz discloses wherein a first content item included in the one or more page content items corresponds to first content data included a first element included in the web page (Figures 5D, 5G). Klevenz, however, does not disclose generating the first content item comprises generating domain-specific (DSL) data based on the first content data.
Sahota discloses the content platform data format is defined by a domain-specific language data based on the first content data(Sahota, paragraphs [0067]-[0069]: transforming XML file to display webpage in HTML, PDF or XML).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Klevenz to include the content platform data format is defined by a domain-specific language data based on the first content data, as taught by Sahota since the combination would have facilitated the design and presentation of webpage content in specific format as Sahota disclosed.
Claims 11-12 are media claims that contain similar limitations of claims 1-2, respectively. Therefore, claims 11-12 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 14-15 and 17 are media claims that contain similar limitations of claims 4-5 and 7, respectively. Therefore, claims 14-15 and 17 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is system claim that contains similar limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
As to claim 21, Klevenz, Sahota and Keyser disclose wherein the format of the CMS data comprise a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) data format (Keyser, paragraphs [0058], [0065]).
As to claim 22, Klevenz, Sahota and Keyser disclose wherein the content data comprises a plurality of paragraphs; a first page content item of the one or more of the page content items represents a first paragraph of the plurality of paragraphs; and a second page content item of the one or more page content items represents a second paragraph of the plurality of paragraphs (Keyser, Figures 4-5).
Claims 9-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klevenz, Sahota and Keyser as applied to claims 1, 11 above, and further in view of Amerige et al. (Amerige), US Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0124061.
As to dependent claim 9, Klevenz discloses wherein for one or more elements in the set of elements, generating the construction item comprises:
identifying a plurality of structural elements included in the web page based on the CMS data (paragraphs [0064]-[0067]: designing a web page with metadata structure for items in the webpage).
Klevenz, however, does not disclose for each structural element included in the plurality of structural elements:
selecting a corresponding domain-specific (DSL) template from a plurality of DSL templates; and
generating a DSL data structure associated with the structural element based on the DSL template and a portion of CMS data corresponding to the structural element.
Amerige teaches for each structural element included in the plurality of structural elements, selecting a corresponding DSL template from a plurality of DSL templates and generating a DSL data structure associated with the structural element based on the DSL template and a portion of CMS data corresponding to the structural element (Amerige, [0025]; selecting one of DSL templates to presenting a type of content item).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined Amerige’s teaching into Klevenz, Sahota and Keyser’s teaching to include for each structural element included in the plurality of structural elements, selecting a corresponding DSL template from a plurality of DSL templates and generating a DSL data structure associated with the structural element based on the DSL template and a portion of CMS data corresponding to the structural element, since the combination would have facilitated the design and tailor presentation of different types of content items in the webpage.
As to dependent claim 10, Klevenz discloses wherein for one or more elements in the set of elements, generating the page content item comprises:
identifying a plurality of content elements included in the web page based on the CMS data (Figure 5D).
Klevenz, however, does not disclose for each content element included in the plurality of content elements:
selecting a corresponding domain-specific (DSL) template from a plurality of DSL templates, and
generating a DSL data structure associated with the content element based on the DSL template and a portion of CMS data corresponding to the content element.
Amerige teaches for each content element included in the plurality of content elements, selecting a corresponding DSL template from a plurality of DSL templates and generating a DSL data structure associated with the content element based on the DSL template and a portion of CMS data corresponding to the content element (Amerige, [0025]; selecting one of DSL templates to presenting a type of content item).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary shill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined Amerige’s teaching into Klevenz, Sahota and Keyser’s teaching to include for each content element included in the plurality of content elements, selecting a corresponding DSL template from a plurality of DSL templates and generating a DSL data structure associated with the content element based on the DSL template and a portion of CMS data corresponding to the content element, sine e the combination would have facilitated the design and tailor presentation of different types of content items in the webpage.
Regarding claim 13, which is dependent on claim 11, Klevenz teaches wherein a first page construction item corresponds to a first element included in the web page, Klevenz teaches wherein generating the first page construction item comprises: determining an element type of the first element (Klevenz, fig.5D). However, Klevenz does not teach the rest of claim 13.
Amerige teaches selecting a first DSL template from a plurality of DSL templates based on the element type; and translating a portion of the CMS data associated with the first element into a domain-specific language (DSL) based on the first DSL template (Amerige, [0025]; selecting one of DSL templates to presenting a type of content item).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined Amerige’s teaching into Sahota and Kievenz’s teaching to include selecting a first DSL template from a plurality of DSL templates based on the element type; and translating a portion of the CMS data associated with the first element into a domain-specific language (DSL) based on the first DSL template, since the combination would have facilitated the design and tailor presentation of different types of content items in the webpage.
Claims 6, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klevenz, Sahota and Keyser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rajkumar et al., US 2014/0201615.
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on claim 1, Klevenz teaches wherein a first page construction item corresponds to a first element included in the web page, wherein a second page construction item corresponds to a second element included in the web page (Klevenz, fig.5D). However, Klevenz does not teach the rest of claim 6.
Rajkumar teaches wherein generating the first page construction item comprises: determining that the first element includes the second element based on a portion of the CMS data associated with the first element; including, in the first page construction item, an identifier associated with the second page construction item (Rajkumar, fig.6; [0062]-[0063]; side menu item 640 includes subsection 645 having links for navigation and/or presenting results/products ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined Rajkumar’s teaching into Sahota and Klevenz’s teaching to include determining that the first element includes the second element based on a portion of the CMS data associated with the first element; including, in the first page construction item, an identifier associated with the second page construction item, since the combination would have facilitated the design of complex webpages as Rajkumar disclosed.
Claim 16 is for one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 6 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 10-17-2003 have been fully considered but they are not deemed fully persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 and 20-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as explained here below, necessitated by Applicant’s substantial amendment (i.e., see amendments of claims 1, 11 and 20-22) to the claims which significantly affected the scope thereof. Please see the rejection above with newly cited prior art Keyser.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37CFR 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4092. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cesar Paula, can be reached at telephone number 5712724128. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHAU T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2145