DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 7, 2026, has been entered.
In the response, the Applicant amended claims 2, 6, and 11. Claim 1 was previously cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 were added. Claims 2-22 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Non-Provisional Non-Statutory Anticipation-type Double Patenting, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Each of the instant claims are still anticipated by at least one of claims 1-17 of US patent No. 11,593,824. The rejection of claims 2-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Non-Provisional Non-Statutory Double Patenting have been maintained accordingly.
v Applicant’s arguments and amendments, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-9, 11-19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “the Office Action is disregarding a recent Office directive regarding rejections under Section 101… The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification." Id. (emphasis added)… by requiring the claim to explicitly recite the memory in claims 2 and 11, the Office Action is ignoring the recent Office directive regarding Section 101… following the Office directive regarding Section 101, claims 2 and 11 do not need to recite the memory as asserted by the Office Action, are patent eligible in accordance with at least Step 2A, prong two, and comply with Section 101”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument. The statement that “(t)he claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification” means that the claims do not need to include language that explicitly states/recites what the improvement is. The example in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) is that the claims need not recite “thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel”. In this case, the claims need not state that the method “can provide responses that meet or exceed a predefined service level agreement, such as responses answered under 100 ms or under 50 ms”. What is required is that one of ordinary skill in the art would need to recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Further, per MPEP 2106.05(a) “(a)n 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.” Suggesting the updated lifetime worth for the first domain name is obtained and provided “without determining a new initial lifetime worth for the first domain name” amounts to the idea of a solution, as there is no indication of how this solution is achieved (e.g., with one or more additional elements). Claims 10 and 20 recite a solution that is found in the sequence of steps/function (e.g., determining, storing, updating, storing in memory, retrieving without determining a new worth), a sequence which significantly comprises storing the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain in memory, and retrieving the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name from the memory. This storing/retrieving from the memory facilitates provisioning the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name to the requestor (or different requestor) without determining a new initial lifetime worth for the first domain name, thereby enabling the system to deliver an accurate estimated domain valuation to online requestors within certain time constraints (e.g., service level agreements such as 50 ms or 100 ms). The memory (a non-abstract additional element) is used to provide the improvement. Applicant’s specification confirms that it is the cache memory that helps provide this improvement (Fig 1 tag 170 & [0030]-[0032], [0035]-[0037]). Independent claims 2 and 11 merely recite the idea of a solution (e.g., “obtaining the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name and providing...without determining a new initial lifetime worth for the first domain”) rather than reciting a particular solution provided by one or more additional elements. Significantly, the memory (an additional element) is not part of the idea of the solution recited in claims 2 and 11. As such, claims 2-9 and 11-19 fail to cover a particular technical solution to the alleged technical problem, and there is no such technical solution provided by one or more additional elements.
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “ETVE…does not overcome the deficiencies of Minardos and Glassman. In rejecting claim 6, the Office Action aligns the recited "initial lifetime worth" with the economic value of an element of ETVE, the recited "attributes" with the attributes of the element of ETVE, and the recited "weights" with the weighting factor of ETVE. Office Action, page 30. However, ETVE discloses "1.1 Domain" is an element in Table II that has several attributes 1.1 to 1.5 in Table IV. ETVE, pages 727 and 729. The 1.1 Domain element is obtained by summing the values of the several attributes 1.1 to 1.5 in Table IV. ETVE, page 729, sections (2) and (3). Next, the weighting factor is applied to the 1.1 Domain element in Table II, and individual weighting factors are not applied to the each of the several attributes 1.1 to 1.5 in Table IV. As such, ETVE does not overcome the deficiencies of Minardos and Glassman.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. ETVE discloses determining an economic value of a website as a sum of individual values computed for a plurality of its components/modules (the terms component and module are used interchangeably). One of these components/modules is the Domain name (see Fig 1 and Table II code 1.1). The value of ETVE’s “domain”/”domain name” component/module corresponds to the claimed “initial lifetime worth for the first domain name”. A valuation of each of the components/modules is determined as a summation of individual values calculated for each of a plurality of elements/attributes (the terms element and attribute are used interchangeably) corresponding to that component/module. (see “Abstract” “it then evaluates each attribute or element of a component, so that it adds or subtracts to the total for that component”; page 727 “elements are attributes that give value to a module”; page 728 “we rate each element in the table by multiplying the data evaluated by the weight factor…this results in its economic value that contributes to the component” and “each component module has elements which are attributes that give value”). Table IV lists a plurality of elements/attributes for the “Domain” component/module (see codes 1.1 through 1.6, including length of name, tupe of extension of the domain, ease of writing, etc.). The elements/attributes of the “domain”/”domain name” component/module of ETVE correspond to the claimed “plurality of attributes”. ETVE further discloses that when determining the valuation of each of the components/modules (e.g., the Domain module/component), the individual values calculated for each of a plurality of elements/attributes are respectively weighted (see page 727 “elements are attributes that give value to a module. Each element is processed with the following equation…” which shows a weight factor is applied to each element/attribute to obtain an “Economic value of the element” and that “the weight factor is the importance of an element with respect to the group where it belongs”, Page 728 further explains that “we rate each element in the table by multiplying the data evaluated by the weight factor…this results in its economic value that contributes to the component”). As such, ETVE discloses applying a plurality of weights respectively to the plurality of attributes to determine the value for the domain name.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
v Claims 2-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipation-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 15/672,664, which has issued as US patent No. 11,593,824. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Each of the instant claims are anticipated by at least one of claims 1-17 of US patent No. 11,593,824. The exact limitations of each of these claims are not being reproduced here for clarity and brevity, as the Examiner believes the anticipation would be self-evident to a PHOSITA.
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.
Claim(s) 2-9, 11-19, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 2-9, 21, and 22 is/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process), while claim(s) 11-19 is/are drawn to systems (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 2-9, 11-19, 21, and 22 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 2 (representative of independent claim(s) 11) recites/describes the following steps;
identifying, based on data from a data source, a keyword;
generating a plurality of domain names based on the keyword, wherein the plurality of generated domain names includes the first domain name, wherein the generated domain names correspond to a combination of the keyword with another word or another identified keyword;
obtaining…one or more inputs from a domain name data source, wherein the one or more inputs comprise data related to comparable historical domain names, data from a linguistic model analysis, data from a linguistic frequency list, data related to a second-level domain to top-level domain relationship analysis, or a combination thereof;
applying, to an initial lifetime worth model, the one or more inputs and the plurality of generated domain names, wherein the initial lifetime worth model comprises a plurality of attributes;
applying, based on the initial lifetime worth model, a plurality of weights respectively to the plurality of attributes to determine an initial lifetime worth for the first domain name;
receiving a first query from a requestor, wherein the first query includes the first domain name;
in response to the first query: identifying the plurality of generated domain names; comparing the first domain name with the plurality of generated domain names, and based on the comparing, identifying the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name; and
providing the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name to the requestor;
updating the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name to obtain an updated initial lifetime worth, wherein the updated initial lifetime worth is updated based on a change to the input
in response to a second query that includes the first domain name, obtaining the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name and providing the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name to the requestor or to a different requestor without determining a new initial lifetime worth for the first domain name.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth generating a plurality of potential domain names based on a keyword, determining an initial lifetime worth for a domain name using certain obtained information and a valuation model, providing the determined initial lifetime worth value to a requestor, updating the worth based on updated data, and providing the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name to a requestor or to a different requestor in response to a second query that includes the first domain name without determining a new initial lifetime worth for the first domain name, which amounts to a fundamental economic principle or practice and/or a commercial or legal interactions (specifically an advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors and/or business relations). This is an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior and/or a business relation, because the lifetime worth values are values that buyers could/should pay for a product (domain name rights) or that sellers could/should sell or advertise the sale of a product (domain name rights) for. The eleven steps represent a process of generating these price values and providing them to requesters. As is known in the art, often times the process of generating and providing these appraisal values is itself a sales activity, because many times requestors are paying to receive the lifetime worth values. This is similar to the idea of offer-based price optimization, which pertains to marketing, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Applicant’s own published disclosure explains that the valuations provided by the system can be useful for parties as part of a process for registering/renewing a domain name (e.g., inform or suggest to them of how much value the domain name is predicted to have, which can inform how much they should pay to register or renew registration for the domain name(s) - i.e., purchasing the rights for domain names (see [0005] “Domain names can be registered by internet users known as "registrants" through many different companies known as "registrars". Registrars compete with one another to register domain names for registrants. That is, an internet user interacts with a registrar to obtain a domain name, thereby becoming a registrant for the domain. The registrar chosen by the registrant asks the registrant to provide various contact and technical information that makes up the registration. The registrar then keeps a record of the contact information and submits the technical information to the registry”, [0007] “In some examples, the method can further comprise determining that the domain name is not currently registered. In some examples, the method can further comprise providing an offer to register the domain name.”, [0029] “offer better real-time suggestions to the registrant” [0057]-[0058] “the lifetime value of a domain name is output by presenting them to a user for registration or renewal. Such embodiments may be implemented by, or in coordination with a registrar or registry, which can implement the registration or renewal process. Such embodiments may present the user with a graphical user interface by which the user may select the domain name and register or renew it using the same interface. The registration or renewal may be accomplished using standard domain name registration or renewal techniques. By using the above-described features, a registry and/or registrar may see an increase in the registration or renewal rates by increasing or reducing prices for domains depending on predicted initial and overall lifetime value. For example, pricing for domains with a high lifetime value can be increased with the expectation that such domains are going to be in high demand and will be purchased even at the higher price. Inversely, a registry or registrar may want to decrease renewal pricing for domains with low lifetime value with the goal of encouraging registrants to retain their domains”). Applicant’s own claims (CLAIM 3), explains that the one or more processors can provide an offer to register the first domain name in combination with providing the updated initial lifetime worth for the domain name. Further, Applicant’s own arguments on the record acknowledge that the claimed process enables “near real time querying of cost and availability of registration of a domain name”. These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, additionally encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) generating a plurality of potential domain names based on a keyword, determining an initial lifetime worth for a domain name using certain obtained information and a valuation model, providing the determined initial lifetime worth value to a requestor, updating the worth based on updated data which amounts, and providing the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name to a requestor or to a different requestor in response to a second query that includes the first domain name without determining a new initial lifetime worth for the first domain name (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 2 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 11 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“by one or more processors….by the one or more processors…” (claim 2)
“an initial lifetime worth computer model” (claims 2 and 11)
“computer system comprising one or more electronic processors; a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that when executed by the one or more electronic processors executes a method…” (claim 11)
“over a communication network” (claims 2 and 11)
“by the one or more processors” (claims 3 and 5)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “by one or more processors….by the one or more processors…” (claim 2) and/or using “computer system comprising one or more electronic processors; a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that when executed by the one or more electronic processors executes a method…” (claim 11) and/or “over a communication network” (claims 2 and 11) and/or “an initial lifetime worth computer model” (claims 2 and 11) and/or “by the one or more processors” (claims 3 and 5) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s own published disclosure explains that these elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., paragraphs [0059]-[0068] “can be any type of computer devices, such as desktops, laptops, servers, DNS servers…mobile devices…implemented or performed with a general-purpose processor…a processor can be any conventional processor…”) This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited additional element(s) of and/or “over a communication network” (claims 2 and 11) and/or “an initial lifetime worth computer model” (claims 2 and 11) additionally serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments such as the internet . This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem.
Dependent claims 4, 6-9, 12-19, 21, and 22 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 4, 6-9, 12-19, 21, and 22 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “by one or more processors….by the one or more processors…” (claim 2) and/or using “computer system comprising one or more electronic processors; a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that when executed by the one or more electronic processors executes a method…” (claim 11) and/or “over a communication network” (claims 2 and 11) and/or “an initial lifetime worth computer model” (claims 2 and 11) and/or “by the one or more processors” (claims 3 and 5) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of and/or “over a communication network” (claims 2 and 11) and/or “an initial lifetime worth computer model” (claims 2 and 11) additionally serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Dependent claims 4, 6-9, 12-19, 21, and 22 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 4, 6-9 and 12-19 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Examiner notes claims 10 and 20 are deemed patent eligible. Applicant’s disclosure discusses the technical problem of being able to deliver accurate estimated domain valuations to online requestors within certain time constraints (e.g., service level agreements such as 50 ms or 100 ms), and the sequence of steps/function (e.g., determining, storing, updating, storing in memory, obtaining from the memory, and providing without determining a new worth) recited in these claims comprise a technical solution to this technical problem.
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 of this title, 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 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.
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 2-6, 9-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minardos et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2017/0186061, June 29, 2017 - hereinafter "Minardos”) in view of in view of “Evaluation and Economic Valorization of Websites Using the Technical Evaluation and Economic Valorization Methodology” (Published at the SAI Computing Conference on July 13-15 2016 and written by Julio Bernabe Cordero - hereinafter "ETVE”) in view of Glassman et al. (U.S. PG Pub No 2008/0059348 March 6, 2008 - hereinafter "Glassman”) in view of Ansel (U.S. Patent No 11,615,313 March 28, 2023 - hereinafter "Ansel”)
With respect to claims 2 and 11, Minardos teaches a method of determining an initial value for a domain name and a computer system comprising;
one or more electronic processors; (Fig 8, [0067])
a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that when executed by the one or more electronic processors executes a method of determining an initial value for a domain name, (Fig 8, [0067])
identifying, by one or more processors and based on data from a data source, a keyword; ( [0040] & [0023] & [0016] & [0060] system periodically creates a list of available domain names using information and keywords identified from dictionaries and/or business registries and/or websites and/or social media postings and further combining these keywords and sometimes by performing searches using these keywords)
generating, by the one or more processors, a plurality of domain names based on the keyword, wherein the plurality of generated domain names includes the first domain name, wherein the generated domain names correspond to a combination of the keyword with another word or another identified keyword; ((Fig 2 tag 210 and [0016] “generates different lists of available domain names”, [0040] available domains names that are formed as compounds of words found in various sources, [0060] stored in database, see also [0023] & [0060] system periodically creates a list of available domain names using information and keywords identified from dictionaries and/or business registries and/or websites and/or social media postings and further combining these keywords and sometimes by performing searches using these keywords)
obtaining, by the one or more processors and over a communication network, one or more inputs from a domain name data sources; ([0018] “coalesces domain name information from one or more registries, registrars…” therefore the at least one or more data sources comprises a DNS registrar (which is also a DNS server) and an existing names database, [0044] availability/scarcity determined from a domain name data source [0060], [0003])
wherein the one or more inputs comprise data related to comparable historical domain names ([0030] “based on availability of domain names of similar character length…based on availability of domain names with a particular word or character sequence” – measure of availability of registered similar domain names is “data related to comparable historical domain names”, [0044] )
data from a linguistic model analysis, ([0023]-[0025] & [0046] data from a linguistic model analysis such as length of name and names having dictionary definitions)
data from a linguistic frequency list, ([0023] & [0027]-[0029] & [0041]-[0042] & [0046] & [0062] data from a linguistic frequency list such as frequency at which the words of the domain occur and/or occur together in various corpus)
data related to a second-level domain to top-level domain relationship analysis, or a combination thereof; ([0036]-[0038] “compute the significance of compound worded domain names…combined meaning or significance”, [0043] & [0047] & [0062]-[0063])
applying, by the one or more processors, to an initial lifetime worth computer model, the one or more inputs and the plurality of generated domain names wherein the initial lifetime worth computer model comprises a plurality of attributes ([0016] “sets pricing for domain names according to…pricing is determined by one or more computers algorithmically”, [0031], “dynamically prices domain names according to the various significance value adjustments and scaling…significance values are stored”, [0045], [0048]-[0054] “customized list of dynamically priced domain names to a potential buyer”, see paragraphs [0024]-[0029] & [0063] for plurality of attributes used to compute the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name (e.g., length of domain name, whether domain name comprises a word with a dictionary definition, whether domain name identifies a product or business name, whether domain name comprises trending words, number of queries made for the domain name, etc.)
applying, based on the initial lifetime worth computer model, a weight to determine the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name ([0030] “scales the derived significance value…applying a multiplier to the significance value”, [0024]-[0031], “adjusting…adjusting….dynamically prices domain names according to the various significance value adjustments and scaling…significance values are stored”, [0045] “prices the domain names based on the adjusted and scaled significance values…”)
receiving, by the one or more processors and over the communication network, a first query from a requestor, wherein the first query includes the first domain name; ( [0045] “when the domain names are requested…” – therefore a first query from a requester for one of the previously generated candidate domain names is received, [0018] “domain name check and pricing”, [0053] “process is initiated when…receives a buyer request for a desired domain name…”)
in response to the first query: identifying, by the one or more processors, the plurality of generated domain names, comparing, by the one or more processors, the first domain name with the plurality of generated domain names ([0053] “receives buyer request for a desired domain name or one or more keywords for a desired domain name…identifies any available domain names containing the keyword…ranks the identified subset of available domain names” the system receives the query and compares it against the list of candidate names (including previously generated candidate names) to retrieve information associated with the requested domain name and/or to find related/similar available domain names to recommend to the user, see also [0045] & [0050] & [0064])
identifying, by the one or more processors, the initial lifetime worth of the first domain name; ([0053], [0045] “dynamically prices…when the domain names are requested and presented to a potential buyer”, [0048] “presents a customized list of dynamically priced domain names to a potential buyer through an online interface”, [0002] “domain name check and pricing…obtain availability and pricing of domain names”, [0032])
providing, by the one or more processors, the identified initial lifetime worth for the first domain name to the requestor; ([0053], [0045] “dynamically prices…when the domain names are requested and presented to a potential buyer”, [0048] “presents a customized list of dynamically priced domain names to a potential buyer through an online interface”, [0002] “domain name check and pricing…obtain availability and pricing of domain names”, [0032])
updating, by the one or more processors, the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name to obtain an updated initial lifetime worth, wherein the updated initial lifetime worth is updated based on a change to the input ([0031] & [0045] & [0053] system periodically determines (e.g., responsive to a new/subsequent request from a requestor) a new/updated lifetime worth value based on current (e.g. new/changed) inputs– therefore Monardos discloses determining an update (i.e., new value) for the initial (i.e., previously computed) lifetime worth value)
in response to a second query that includes the first domain name, providing the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name to the requestor or to a different requestor (([0048] “presents a customized list of dynamically priced domain names to a potential buyer through an online interface” & [0021] “dynamically presents the…as well as the dynamic pricing” - storing data (e.g., a value that was just output by a model) in memory (e.g., RAM) and retrieval of this data from memory are inherent steps that are required for the display function of the “updated” value to be performed. As such, Minardors discloses storing the storing all computed lifetime worth values (e.g., the initial and/or subsequent “updated” values) for the domain name in a memory (e.g., at least temporarily so that it may be displayed))
Although Minardos discloses a plurality of attributes that together contribute to the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name, and although Minardos appears to suggest that the amount that each of these attributes contributes may be variable, Minardoes does not appear to explicitly disclose,
applying a plurality of weights respectively to the plurality of attributes to determine the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name
However, ETVE discloses determining an economic value of a website as a sum of individual values computed for a plurality of its components/modules (the terms component and module are used interchangeably). One of these components/modules is the Domain name (see Fig 1 and Table II code 1.1). The value of ETVE’s “domain”/”domain name” component/module corresponds to the claimed “initial lifetime worth for the first domain name”. A valuation of each of the components/modules is determined as a summation of individual values calculated for each of a plurality of elements/attributes (the terms element and attribute are used interchangeably) corresponding to that component/module. (see “Abstract” “it then evaluates each attribute or element of a component, so that it adds or subtracts to the total for that component”; page 727 “elements are attributes that give value to a module”; page 728 “we rate each element in the table by multiplying the data evaluated by the weight factor…this results in its economic value that contributes to the component” and “each component module has elements which are attributes that give value”). Table IV lists a plurality of elements/attributes for the “Domain” component/module (see codes 1.1 through 1.6, including length of name, tupe of extension of the domain, ease of writing, etc.). The elements/attributes of the “domain”/”domain name” component/module of ETVE correspond to the claimed “plurality of attributes”. ETVE further discloses that when determining the valuation of each of the components/modules (e.g., the Domain module/component), the individual values calculated for each of a plurality of elements/attributes are respectively weighted (see page 727 “elements are attributes that give value to a module. Each element is processed with the following equation…” which shows a weight factor is applied to each element/attribute to obtain an “Economic value of the element” and that “the weight factor is the importance of an element with respect to the group where it belongs”, Page 728 further explains that “we rate each element in the table by multiplying the data evaluated by the weight factor…this results in its economic value that contributes to the component”). As such, ETVE discloses applying a plurality of weights respectively to the plurality of attributes to determine the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name.
ETVE suggests it is advantageous to include w applying a plurality of weights respectively to the plurality of attributes to determine the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name, because doing so can establish a formal definition for the components, can get repeatable results, and can generally provide an effective, efficient, and objective methodology for determining an initial lifetime worth of a domain name.
Therefore, 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 method and system of Minardos to include applying a plurality of weights respectively to the plurality of attributes to determine the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name, as taught by ETVE because doing so can establish a formal definition for the components, can get repeatable results, and can generally provide an effective, efficient, and objective methodology for determining an initial lifetime worth of a domain name.
Although Minardoes discloses comparing a the queried first domain name against the list of candidate domain names (e.g., to determine whether it is available to purchase and/or to obtain information associated with the requested name), and further discloses precomputing significance values for the list of candidate domain names and updating these values periodically and/or on a scheduled basis ([0060], [0023]), Minardos does not disclose precomputing the initial lifetime worth of the first domain name. As such, Minardos does not appear to disclose identifying the initial lifetime worth of the first domain name based on comparing the first domain name with the list of candidate domain names (which includes any previously generated candidate names – e.g., in order to retrieve the stored valuation). Minardos does not appear to disclose,
applying a plurality of weights respectively to the plurality of attributes to determine the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name
based on the comparing, identifying the initial lifetime worth of the first domain name;
in response to a second query that includes the first domain name, obtaining the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name and providing the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name to the requestor or to a different requestor without determining a new initial lifetime worth for the first domain name
However, Glassman discloses a method and system for determining/estimating worth values for assets, including domain names (abstract, [0004], [0010]). Glassman further discloses
based on the comparing, identifying the initial lifetime worth of the first domain name; ([0097] valuation process may occur automatically by the system, [0100] query system for predicted data (e.g., previously determined appraisals as discussed elsewhere including [0116]-[0118] and [0094]-[0095]), [0095 & [0139]-[0142] system generates documents or document information including predicted appraisal values for domain names and stores this in a database which is searchable such that an appraisal value is identified/retrieved based on a query for the domain name (which involves comparing the search query against the names in the database, which includes the previously generated domain names per combination with Minardos) )
in response to a query (e.g., a second query that includes the first domain name) obtaining the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name and providing the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name to the requestor or to a different requestor without determining a new initial lifetime worth for the first domain name ([0097] “the process of valuing…may possibly be initiated directly or indirectly by at least one user, or automatically by the system itself…data requested by the user may be an appraisal value”, [0100] “GI…interacts with users…a valuation system…allow user 110 to request…any historical data, current data, and/or predicted data…” – a user queries the system for historical and/or predicted data (e.g., previously determined domain appraisals as discussed elsewhere, such as[0116]-[0118] and [0094]-[0095], in which case the system provides the user with one or more previously determined appraisal values (which were updated valuations at one point) without determining a new one in response to the query, [0095] & [0139]-[0142] system generates documents or document information including predicted appraisal values for domain names and stores this in a database which is searchable such that an appraisal value is identified/retrieved based on a query for the domain name)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of retrieving the initial lifetime worth of the first domain name from memory (based on comparing the users query against the names in the database, which involves comparing the queried name with a list of candidates which would include the generated domain names per combination with Minardo – i.e., based on the comparing, identifying the initial lifetime worth of the first domain name) and further retrieving the initial/updated lifetime worth of the first domain name from the memory and providing it to a requestor without determining a new initial lifetime worth for the first domain name, of Glassman for the determination of the updated value responsive to a request for the value of Minardos. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Examiner notes that prior art reference Webby (cited at the end of this action) also disclose periodically updating calculated values (e.g., package costs) and caching these values so that they may be retrieved and provided to a requester in real-time without significant delay.
Examiner notes prior reference Bruce also discloses periodically calucating real estate valuations and storing the valuations so that the valuations are retrievable quickly and without needing to recalculate at request time.
With respect to claim 12, Minardos teaches the system of claim 11 ;
further comprising determining that the first domain name is not currently registered ([0050] “in order to find an available domain name”, [0053] “buyer request for a desired domain name…recomputes for available domain names…” – the system therefore determines whether the requested domain name (e.g., in addition to other similar/variants of this name) is currently registered/available to identify those names that are available, [0002] “domain name check and pricing…obtain availability and pricing of domain names” )
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Minardos teaches the method of claim 2, and the system of claim 12 ;
further comprising providing, by the one or more processors, an offer to register the first domain name ([0003] “from the interface, the buyer can select and purchase a particular domain name…in response, the process registers the particular domain name to the buyer”, [0048] & [0050] & [0053])
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Minardos teaches the method of claim 2, and the system of claim 11;
wherein the one or more domain name data sources comprise a DNS server, a DNS registrar, and an existing domain name database ([0018] “coalesces domain name information from one or more registries, registrars…” therefore the at least one or more data sources comprises a DNS registrar (which is also a DNS server) and an existing names database, [0060])
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Minardos teaches the method of claim 2, and the system of claim 11 ;
further comprising applying, by the one or more processors, a weighting factor to a numerical representation of a numerical representation of the domain name data source ([0030]-[0031] “scaling can involve applying a multiplier to the significance value…prices according to the various significance value adjustments and scaling” – a multiplier is a weighting factor that is applied to a significance value (i.e., numerical representation of each of the data sources, [0045] “the adjusted and scaled significance values”)
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Minardos and Glassman teach the method of claim 2, and the system of claim 11. Minardos does not appear to disclose,
wherein the initial lifetime worth is determined by:
PNG
media_image1.png
233
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, ETVE disclsoes
wherein the initial lifetime worth is determined by:
PNG
media_image1.png
233
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(See pages 727 and 729 - the “domain module” of the ETVE model determines a valuation of a domain name as a sum of the value of all of its measured components (attributes based on the one or more inputs) wherein the value of all of its measured components is determined by multiplying a weight factor by a numerical representation of that component – see table IV for the measured components used by the domain module to determine a valuation of a domain name).
ETVE suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the initial lifetime worth is determined by the claimed algorithm because doing so can establish a formal definition for the components, can get repeatable results, and can generally provide an effective, efficient, and objective methodology for determining an initial lifetime worth of a domain name.
Therefore, 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 method and system of Minardos in view of Glassman to include wherein the initial lifetime worth is determined by the claimed algorithm, as taught by ETVE because doing so can establish a formal definition for the components, can get repeatable results, and can generally provide an effective, efficient, and objective methodology for determining an initial lifetime worth of a domain name.
With respect to claims 9 and 19, Minardos teaches the method of claim 2, and the system of claim 11 ;
wherein identifying the keyword comprises: identifying a plurality of keywords based on data from the data source, wherein the data includes data representing a pattern, an expiring domain name, a domain name system (DNS) request, a DNS traffic data, and/or a previous domain name valuation request ( [0040] & [0023] & [0016] & [0060] system periodically creates a list of available domain names using information and keywords identified from dictionaries and/or business registries and/or websites and/or social media postings and further combining these keywords and sometimes by performing searches using these keywords – and therefore the data includes at least data includes data representing a pattern )
Examiner notes that Glassman also discloses obtaining keywords from previous domain name valuation request and/or DNS traffic data
With respect to claims 10 and 20, Minardos teaches the method of claim 2, and the system of claim 11 ;
storing the updated initial lifetime worth for the first domain name in memory (([0048] “presents a customized list of dynamically priced domain names to a potential buyer through an online interface” & [0021] “dynamically presents the…as well as the dynamic pricing” - storing data (e.g., a value that was just output by a model) in memory (e.g., RAM) and retrieval of this data from memory are inherent steps that are required for the display function of the “updated” value to be performed. As such, Minardors discloses storing the storing all computed lifetime worth values (e.g., the initial and/or subsequent “updated” values) for the domain name in a memory (e.g., at least temporarily so that it may be displayed))
Although Minardoes discloses comparing a the queried first domain name against the list of candidate domain names (e.g., to determine whether it is available to purchase and/or to obtain information associated with the requested name), and further discloses precomputing significance values for the list of candidate domain names and updating these values periodically and/or on a scheduled basis ([0060], [0023]), Minardos does not disclose precomputing the initial lifetime worth of the first domain name. As such, Minardos does not appear to disclose,
wherein obtaining the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name comprises retrieving the updated initial lifetime worth from memory
However, Glassman discloses a method and system for determining/estimating worth values for assets, including domain names (abstract, [0004], [0010]). Glassman further discloses
wherein obtaining the initial lifetime worth for the first domain name comprises retrieving the updated initial lifetime worth from memory ([0097] “the process of valuing…may possibly be initiated directly or indirectly by at least one user, or automatically by the system itself…data requested by the user may be an appraisal value”, [0100] “GI…interacts with users…a valuation system…allow user 110 to request…any historical data, current data, and/or predicted data…” – a user queries the system for historical and/or predicted data (e.g., previously determined domain appraisals as discussed elsewhere, such as[0116]-[0118] and [0094]-[0095], in which case the system provides the user with one or more previously determined appraisal values (which were updated valuations at one point) without determining a new one in response to the query, [0095] & [0139]-[0142] system generates documents or document information including predicted appraisal values for domain names and stores this in a database which is searchable such that an appraisal value is identified/retrieved based on a query for the domain name)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of storing of the initial/updated lifetime worth of the first domain name in memory and retrieving the initial/updated lifetime worth of the first domain name from the memory and providing it to a requestor without determining a new initial lifetime worth for the first domain name, of Glassman for the determination of the updated value responsive to a request for the value of Minardos. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Examiner notes that prior art reference Webby (cited at the end of this action) also disclose periodically updating calculated values (e.g., package costs) and caching these values so that they may be retrieved and provided to a requester in real-time without significant delay.
Examiner notes prior reference Bruce also discloses periodically calculating real estate valuations and storing the valuations so that the valuations are retrievable quickly and without needing to recalculate at request time.
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minardos in view of ETVE in view of Glassman, as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Bruce et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,984,489, April 20, 2021 - hereinafter "Bruce”)
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Minardos, ETVE, and Glassman teach the method of claim 2 and the system of claim 11. Although Minardos discloses precomputing significance values for the list of candidate domain names and updating these values periodically and/or on a scheduled basis ([0060], [0023]), Minardos does not appear to disclose,
updating the initial lifetime worth for the domain name on a scheduled basis
However, Bruce discloses
updating the initial lifetime worth for the domain name on a scheduled basis (10:7-16 “these steps may be performed periodically…such as daily…recent sales”, 23:10-32 “smoothed valuations that are generated by blending the raw evaluations generated by the current iteration of the model with earlier values”)
Bruce suggests it is advantageous to include updating the initial lifetime worth for the domain name on a scheduled basis, because doing so can enable accurate valuations for assets (3:58-67 & 10:7-16 & 23:10-32).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of periodic updating of the valuation on a scheduled basis of Bruce for the determination of the updated value responsive to a request for the value of Minardos in view of ETVE in view of Glassman. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Furthermore, 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 method of system of Minardos in view of ETVE in view of Glassman to include updating the initial lifetime worth for the domain name on a scheduled basis, as taught by Bruce. As in Bruce, it was within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and system of Minardos to include updating the initial lifetime worth for the domain name on a scheduled basis. Furthermore, as in Bruce, the results of doing so would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art that doing so would enable accurate valuations for assets, as is needed in Minardos.
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Minardos, ETVE, and Glassman teach the method of claim 2 and the system of claim 11. Although Minardos discloses precomputing significance values for the list of candidate domain names and updating these values periodically and/or on a scheduled basis ([0060], [0023]), Minardos does not appear to disclose,
updating the initial lifetime worth for the domain name periodically
However, Bruce discloses
updating the initial lifetime worth for the domain name periodically (10:7-16 “these steps may be performed periodically…such as daily…recent sales”, 23:10-32 “smoothed valuations that are generated by blending the raw evaluations generated by the current iteration of the model with earlier values”)
Bruce suggests it is advantageous to include updating the initial lifetime worth for the domain name periodically, because doing so can enable accurate valuations for assets (3:58-67 & 10:7-16 & 23:10-32).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of periodic updating of the valuation periodically of Bruce for the determination of the updated value responsive to a request for the value of Minardos in view of ETVE in view of Glassman. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Furthermore, 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 method of system of Minardos in view of ETVE in view of Glassman to include updating the initial lifetime worth for the domain name periodically, as taught by Bruce. As in Bruce, it was within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and system of Minardos in view of ETVE in view of Glassman to include updating the initial lifetime worth for the domain name periodically. Furthermore, as in Bruce, the results of doing so would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art that doing so would enable accurate valuations for assets, as is needed in Minardos.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minardos in view of ETVE in view of Glassman, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ansel (U.S. Patent No. 11,615,313 March 28, 2023 - hereinafter "Ansel”)
With respect to claim 21, Minardos, ETVE, and Glassman teach the method of claim 2. Although Minardos discloses obtaining historical domain data from a domain registrar, Minardos does not appear to disclose,
wherein the weights are based on historical domain registration data
However, Ansel discloses
wherein the weights are based on historical domain registration data (4:18-60 “Once the training set has been determined and stored in the database, the DNVS may train the ANN. Training the ANN involves reading the data from the training set and applying the data for a sold domain name to the ANN….the weights and/or biases for each input to each node (artificial neuron) may be adjusted to train the ANN. The process may be repeated for additional sold domain names. Once all of the sold domain names have been processed (an epoch), the process may be repeated over and over using the same sold domain names in the training set….Thus, the DNVS may read from the training set all, or parts of the training set as needed, of 1) a word features vectors of real numbers for each s_token in each sold domain name in a plurality of sold domain names; 2) a word embedding vector of real numbers for each s_token in each sold domain name in the plurality of sold domain names; 3) a context embedding vector of real numbers for each sold domain name in the plurality of sold domain names; 4) a DNS embedding vector of real numbers for each sold domain name in the plurality of sold domain names; and 5) a domain name features vector of real numbers for each sold domain name in the plurality of sold domain names. While these are the preferred vectors of real numbers, not all of these vectors of real numbers need to be used in every embodiment and/or additional vectors of real number may also be used with the described vectors of real numbers. In addition, while each of these vectors is described individually, these vectors of real numbers and/or other undescribed vectors of real numbers may be stored separately or combined when stored in the database as the training set…” – weights are based on the training data of historical domain data, 3:3-49 “The DNVS also preferably has access to read from a large database running on a hardware server, wherein the database comprises a plurality of registered domain names. The DNVS may read the registered domain names and tokenize each registered domain name into one or more r_tokens. The DNVS may map each s_token and/or each r_token, based on one or more neighboring words of the s_token or the r_token, to a word embedding vector of real numbers. In other words, the word embedding uses the s_tokens and/or the r_tokens in the sold domain names and/or the registered domain names to try to predict their neighboring words. This process takes advantage of the fact that similar words, in domain names and bodies of text in general, tend to be neighbors with the same words. The word embedding of the s_tokens and/or the r_tokens thus also tries to map similar s_tokens and/or r_tokens closer to each other in high dimensional space than to s_tokens and/or r_tokens that are dissimilar. Thus, the tokens “man” and “male” may be mapped very close to each other, since they are synonyms, “man” and “woman” may be mapped a little further apart, since they are antonyms, and “man” and “the” may be mapped even further apart, since one is a noun and one is an article of speech. However, all of these words might be mapped closer together in high dimensional space than words from different languages. The word embedding vector of real numbers for each s_token and each r_token may be saved in the database as part of the training set. The DNVS may map each sold domain name, having an associated context, to a context embedding vector of real numbers. While the word features vector of real numbers and word embedding vector of real numbers dealt with one or more words tokenized from the sold domain names and registered domain names, the context embedding vector of real numbers deals with the sold domain name itself.” – the training data used to determine the weights is historical domain registration data, 16:25-34 “The DNVS 190 may tokenize each registered domain name in a plurality of registered domain names into one or more r_tokens. (Step 820) The same methods used to tokenize the plurality of sold domain names 180 may be used to tokenize the plurality of registered domain names. The plurality of registered domain names may be read from any desired database. As a non-limiting example, the registered domain names may be read from one or more zone files 182 stored in the database or databases of registered domain names.”)
Ansel suggests it is advantageous to include wherein the weights are based on historical domain registration data, because historical domain registration data can provide a useful source of information with which to compute weights (see above citations).
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 method of system of Minardos in view of ETVE in view of Glassman to include wherein the weights are based on historical domain registration data, as taught by Ansel. As in Ansel, it was within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and system of Minardos in view of ETVE in view of Glassman to include wherein the weights are based on historical domain registration data. Furthermore, as in Ansel, the results of doing so would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art that doing so would provide a useful source of information with which to compute weights, as is needed in Minardos.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minardos in view of ETVE in view of Glassman, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Thumula et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,615,313 March 28, 2023 - hereinafter "Ansel”)
With respect to claim 22, Minardos, ETVE, and Glassman teach the method of claim 2. Minardos does not appear to disclose,
wherein at least one of the attributes comprises an average number of years that domains are renewed.
However, Thumula discloses
wherein at least one of the attributes comprises an average number of years that domains are renewed (Fig 4 shows attribute of “average duration of registration periods” as a attribute and per [0005]-[0008] & [0024]-[0025] these attributes are correlated with perceived value/worth of the domain name)
Thumula suggests it is advantageous to include wherein at least one of the attributes comprises an average number of years that domains are renewed, because this attribute is correlated with perceived value/worth of a domain name (see above citations).
Therefore, 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 method and system of Minardos in view of ETVE in view of Glassman to include wherein at least one of the attributes comprises an average number of years that domains are renewed, as taught by Thumula, because this attribute is correlated with perceived value/worth of a domain name.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Johnson (U.S. PG Pub No. 2010/0058210, March 4, 2010) teaches caching domain name valuations ([0283]).
Webby et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2008/0262878 October 23, 2008) discloses periodically updating calculated values (e.g., package costs) and caching these values so that they may be retrieved and provided to a requester in real-time without significant delay.
Colosi et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2012/0084281 April 5, 2012) discloses taking a domain name and identifying keywords in the name and identifying a plurality of related keywords and generating a plurality of domain names related/similar to the initial domain name and scoring them and providing the names and scores to a requesting user.
Kadmar et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2016/0196346 July 7, 2016) discloses domain name valuation based on various inputs and modeling strategies and providing valuation services responsive to valuation requests and various user interfaces related thereto.
Nicks et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,058,393 June 16, 2015) discloses domain name valuation based on various inputs and modeling strategies and providing valuation services responsive to valuation requests and various user interfaces related thereto.
Lai (U.S. Patent No. 10,409,803 September 10, 2019) discloses generating plurality of candidate domain names based on keywords and combinations of keywords obtained from a variety of data sources
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-3948. 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. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621