DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-2, 5-12, 14-18, and 20-24 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are amended.
Claims 21-24 are new.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, 14-18, and 20-24 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the amendment filed 05/01/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons are set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, 14-18, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-12, 14-18, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judgment such as editing the presentation of content, which is a mental process without significantly more. The claims recite “selecting a first version of a content for a first section of the webpage; selecting a first version of additional content for the second section based on the interdependency tag; determining, based on the interdependency tag, a behavior associated with the second section that is dependent on the first version of the first section; generating the webpage with a first configuration comprising the first version of the content for the first section and the first version of the additional content for the second section, and configuring the second section to operate according to the determined behavior.” Specifically, what the claims are directed to is the act of generating different webpage configurations to see what configurations are effective in, e.g., causing a user to make a purchase from a website, see Specification, paragraphs 0003-0004.
The claims are not directed to a practical application because all the claims do is link the judgment to a particular field of use – webpages over the internet. The claims do not improve a computer. The additional features that these steps are taken in response to “receiving, by a server computing device, a request from a client computing device” and that the result of the judgment is to “transmit[] the webpage with the first configuration to the client computing device,” are insignificant conventional pre- and post-solution steps. The remainder of the features are features that simply place the abstract idea into a particular field of use by invoking conventional computer hardware and software such as webpage generation. Consequently, the claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20-24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Minnis et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0201242), in view of Vasilik (U.S. Patent No. 8,296,643), and further in view of Imielinski et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0101332).
As per claim 1, Minnis teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a server computing device, a request from a client computing device of a user to access a webpage (Minnis: paragraphs 0044 and 0079; client requests a web page...paragraphs 0091-0110 and 0115-0123; system tracks a user’s behavior on a website to profile a user), wherein the request includes an IP address of the client computing device (Minnis: paragraph 0006; content of page may be based on IP address of requesting device);
in response to the request, selecting a first version of a content for a first section of the webpage (A first version of content for a first section will be taught later. Minnis: paragraphs 0168-0184 and figs. D8-D19; system reconfigures multiple portions of webpage to fit the behavioral portrait of different users, including moving information around, expanding or collapsing it);
determining, based on the interdependency tag, a behavior associated with the second section that is dependent on the first version of the first section (An interdependency tag will be taught later. Minnis: paragraphs 0127-0137; reorganization of information and placing content in collapsible/expandible containers versus reorganizing or addition/deletion, which is behavior);
generating the webpage with a first configuration comprising the first version of the content for the first section and the first version of the additional content for the second section (Minnis: paragraphs 0168-0184 and figs. D8-D19; system reconfigures multiple portions of webpage to fit the behavioral portrait of different users, including moving information around, expanding or collapsing it…paragraph 0069; Server generates web page with remashed content. See also Vasilik: col. 2, lines 51-63 and col. 5, lines 23-32; serving of web pages to visitors including serving different variations of the web page); and
configuring the second section to operate according to the determined behavior (Minnis: paragraphs 0127-0137; reorganization of information and placing content in collapsible/expandible containers versus reorganizing or addition/deletion, which is behavior);
transmitting the webpage with the first configuration to the client computing device (Minnis: paragraph 0069; Server transmits web page with remashed content to client. See also Vasilik: col. 2, lines 51-63 and col. 5, lines 23-32; serving of web pages to visitors including serving different variations of the web page);
However Minnis does not explicitly mention a first version of a content for a first section of the webpage; selecting a first version of additional content for the second section based on the interdependency tag.
However Vasilik teaches:
a first version of a content for a first section of the webpage (Vasilik: col. 2, line 52 to col. 3, line 22 and fig. 1; web server stores webpages containing content…col. 5, lines 32-51 and fig. 3; web pages can include variable content items including variations of header, image, and text. An image is a first section and text is a second section. Images 314A-B are a first and second version of content for the first section. See also Minnis: paragraph 0157; page template with page sections and specifying alternate images/text based on portrait type);
selecting a first version of additional content for the second section based on the interdependency tag (An interdependency tag will be taught later. First see Minnis: paragraphs 0168-0184 and figs. D8-D19; system reconfigures multiple portions of webpage to fit the behavioral portrait of different users, including moving information around, expanding or collapsing it. paragraph 0157; page template with page sections and specifying alternate images/text based on portrait type. Then see Vasilik: col. 5, lines 32-51 and fig. 3; web pages can include variable content items including variations of header, image, and text. An image is a first section and text is a second section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the instant invention to combine the method of Minnis with the versions of content for sections in order to allow webpage creators to test the effectiveness of multiple alternate types of communication. (Vasilik: col. 3 lines 4-22).
However Minnis and Vasilik do not explicitly mention identifying an interdependency tag associated with the first section, the interdependency tag indicating that content for a second section of the webpage is dependent on the first version for the first section.
However Imielinski teaches:
identifying an interdependency tag associated with the first section, the interdependency tag indicating that content for a second section of the webpage is dependent on the first version for the first section (First see Minnis: Figs. D8-D19 and paragraphs 0168-0184; system reconfigures multiple portions of webpage to fit the behavioral portrait of different users, including moving information around, expanding or collapsing it. Then see Imielinski: Table 1 and paragraphs 0022, 0038-0040, 0046-0048, and 0051; tags are used to identify changes between original and modified versions of presentation of data, which are second contents that are dependent upon first content…paragraphs 0061-0069 and Tables 3-5; system reorders and transforms the presentation of data to the user. If Table 3 was an original presentation and Table 5 was a modified presentation, a second section comprising the rightmost part of the display in Table 5 (“Body4”) would contain a tag referring to the bottom right content displayed in Table 3 (“Body4”), which is an interdependency tag).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the instant invention to combine the method of Minnis and Vasilik with the second section content being dependent on first section content in Imielinski in order to customize the web page layout (Imielinski: paragraphs 0011-0013).
As per claim 2, the modified Minnis teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying the user of the client computing device based on the IP address of the client computing device included in the request to access the webpage (Minnis: paragraph 0006; content of page may be based on IP address of requesting device).
As per claim 5, the modified Vasilik teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the selecting comprises selecting the first version for the second section based on the first version of the first section identified by the interdependency tag (Imielinski: Table 1 and paragraphs 0022, 0038-0040, 0046-0048, and 0051; tags are used to identify changes between original and modified versions of presentation of data, which are second contents that are dependent upon first content…paragraphs 0061-0069 and Tables 3-5; system reorders and transforms the presentation of data to the user. If Table 3 was an original presentation and Table 5 was a modified presentation, a second section comprising the rightmost part of the display in Table 5 (“Body4”) would contain a tag referring to the bottom right content displayed in Table 3 (“Body4”), which is an interdependency tag)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
As per claim 6, the modified Minnis teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the identifying comprises: identifying that the interdependency tag indicates that the content for the second section of the webpage depends on the content for the first section of the webpage (Imielinski: paragraphs 0061-0069 and Tables 3-5; system reorders and transforms the presentation of data to the user, which is a dependency of content. See also Minnis: paragraphs 0127-0137; reorganization of information).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
As per claim 7, the modified Minnis teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the interdependency tag further indicates that a behavior of the second section of the webpage depends on the content for the first section of the webpage (Imielinski: paragraphs 0061-0069 and Tables 3-5; system reorders and transforms the presentation of data to the user, which is a dependency of content. See also Minnis: paragraphs 0127-0137; reorganization of information. paragraphs 127-137; placing content in collapsible/expandible containers versus reorganizing or addition/deletion, which is behavior).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to claim 11, it is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Vasilik also teaches a system comprising: a processor; and non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the processor, causes the processor to perform: (Vasilik: col. 10, lines 62 to col. 11, line 20; processor, memory, and non-transitory media such as magnetic disks).
The same motivation to combine as Claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claims 12, 14-15, they are substantially similar to claims 2, 6-7, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to claim 17, it is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Vasilik also teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that in response to execution by a server computing device, causes the server computing device to: (Vasilik: col. 10, lines 62 to col. 11, lines 20; processor, memory, and non-transitory media such as magnetic disks).
The same motivation to combine as Claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 18, it is substantially similar to claim 2, and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to claim 20, the modified Minnis teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the interdependency tag (Imielinski: Table 1 and paragraphs 0022, 0038-0040, 0046-0048, and 0051; tags are used to identify changes between original and modified versions of presentation of data, which are second contents that are dependent upon first content…paragraphs 0061-0069 and Tables 3-5; system reorders and transforms the presentation of data to the user. If Table 3 was an original presentation and Table 5 was a modified presentation, a second section comprising the rightmost part of the display in Table 5 (“Body4”) would contain a tag referring to the bottom right content displayed in Table 3 (“Body4”), which is an interdependency tag):
indicates that the additional content for the second section of the webpage depends on the content for the first section of the webpage (Imielinski: paragraphs 0061-0069 and Tables 3-5; system reorders and transforms the presentation of data to the user, which is a dependency of content. See also Minnis: paragraphs 0127-0137; reorganization of information), and indicates that a behavior of the second section of the webpage depends on the content for the first section of the webpage (Imielinski: paragraphs 0061-0069 and Tables 3-5; system reorders and transforms the presentation of data to the user, which is a dependency of content. See also Minnis: paragraphs 0127-0137; reorganization of information. paragraphs 127-137; placing content in collapsible/expandible containers versus reorganizing or addition/deletion, which is behavior).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
As per claim 21, the modified Minnis teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the interdependency tag specifies a plurality of candidate versions for the second section corresponding to the first version of the first section (Minnis: paragraphs 0180-0181; specification content of the systems is collapsed in order to fit in reviews and user ratings of the systems…paragraph 0173; specification content for systems is emphasized. Therefore the specification and user reviews/ratings are two versions of second content that correspond to the first content of a particular system. See also Vasilik: fig. 14 and col. 5, lines 33-43; multiple variations for three sections of content).
As per claim 22, the modified Minnis teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the identifying the interdependency tag comprises retrieving the interdependency tag from metadata stored in association with content for the first section (Imielinski: paragraphs 0039, 0048; Transformation rules and virtual tags are stored in virtual repository with the virtual pages they create in relation to an original document, which makes the tags and rules metadata related to content of a first section).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
As per claim 23, the modified Minnis teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the interdependency tag encodes a relationship between a subject matter of the first section and a subject matter of the second section (Imielinski: paragraphs 0058-0059; System determines relationships in the structure of a webpage and applies transformation rules to the relationships in order to reconfigure content. paragraphs 0061-0069 and Tables 3-5; system reorders and transforms the presentation of data to the user, which is a dependency of content).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
As per claim 24, the modified Minnis teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the selecting the first version for the second section comprises selecting content based on a relationship indicated by the interdependency tag (Imielinski: paragraphs 0058-0059; System determines relationships in the structure of a webpage and applies transformation rules to the relationships in order to reconfigure content. paragraphs 0061-0069 and Tables 3-5; system reorders and transforms the presentation of data to the user, which is a dependency of content).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
Claims 8-10 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Minnis et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0201242), in view of Vasilik (U.S. Patent No. 8,296,643), in view of Imielinski et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0101332), and further in view of Chandran et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0059317).
As per claim 8, the modified Minnis teaches the method of claim 6.
However the modified Minnis does not explicitly mention a drop down menu.
However Chandran teaches:
wherein the interdependency tag indicates that drop-down menu is to be used to display the content of the second section when the first version of the first section of the webpage is selected (Chandran: Fig. 8, paragraph 0087: User uses drop down boxes which causes the display of credit card offers matching the filtered attributes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the instant invention to combine the method of the modified Minnis with the drop down menu of Chandran in order to allow for the selection of filters to provide targeted data.
As per claim 9, the modified Minnis teaches the method of claim 1.
However the modified Minnis does not explicitly mention features and benefits of a transaction account.
However Chandran teaches:
wherein the webpage comprises: a transaction account webpage, and wherein one of the first section or the second section provides information associated with features of a transaction account (Examiner asserts that the content here is content directed at a viewer of a website and therefore constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material not entitled to patentable weight. Regardless, see Chandran: paragraph 0005: Credit account. Figs. 9-11, paragraphs 0089-0091: Invitation for a user to select a credit card that they are prescreened for. The page may include one or multiple cards that includes features, such as name or interest rate), and the other one of the first section or the second section provides information associated with benefits of the features (Examiner asserts that the content here is content directed at a viewer of a website and therefore constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material not entitled to patentable weight. Regardless, see Chandran: Figs. 9-11, paragraphs 0089-0091: Invitation for a user to select a credit card that they are prescreened for. The page may include one or multiple cards that includes benefits, such as 0% on balance transfers or an intro rate of 0%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the instant invention to combine the method of modified Minnis with the features and benefits of a transaction account in order to allow a user to decide which account to open.
As per claim 10, the modified Minnis teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the server computing device comprises: a server of a transaction account issuer (The owner of a server is nonstructural and therefore is not entitled to patentable weight. Regardless, see Chandran: paragraph 0041; modules may be run by the offeror or may be run by a third party. Paragraph 0031; device may be implemented by an array of servers).
The same motivation to combine as claim 9 applies here.
As per claim 16, it is substantially similar to Claim 9 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
REMARKS
Applicant submitted arguments to overturn the rejection on 05/01/2026. The examiner maintains the rejections, see remarks below.
The applicant Argues:
Argument 1: Applicant argues at Remarks, pages 10-12 that the claims are eligible under Step2A of the 101 analysis. Applicant argues that when the claims are considered as a whole the claim is directed to “a process for generating a webpage using interdependency tags that define relationships between sections and further control behavior of the sections based on the selected content.”
In response, The claims remain directed to “an advanced targeting system for selecting and transmitting effective web configurations to users,” (Specification, paragraph 0002). i.e. the claims utilize judgment to select how to present information to readers in the most effective manner. Claim 1 is representative and requires “selecting a first version of a content for a first section of the webpage” and then presenting a second section of a webpage that contains content that is dependent upon a first section of the webpage. The specification makes clear that this content is for human consumption. The claim then require “selecting a first version of additional content for the second section,” and “determining [] a behavior associated with the second section that is dependent on the first version of the first section.”
Although “a behavior” may, at first blush, sound like something more than webpage generation is going on, Specification, paragraph 0045 (which is the most detailed the specification gets about “behavior”) makes clear that behavior really means the manner in which content is presented to a user:
“The behavior dependency may indicate that the behavior of the second section changes with any change in the content of the first section. For example, if there are any additions or removals or modifications in the “Features” section, then the corresponding “Benefits” sections may need to be dynamically updated accordingly. Based on the content of the “Features” section, the corresponding behavior for the “Benefits” section may indicate that the benefits should be displayed in a list or as a drop-down menu.”
This one example of what constitutes “behavior” in the specification simply presents the same information (“benefits”) in either a first format (“list”) or a second (“drop down menu”). Notably, the Specification provides no technical teaching as to how to present information in either format or how to swap information between them. This is because there is no technical problem in presenting information to a user using a webpage in either format, the ability is conventional in the art.
Consequently, the “interdependency tag” is not a technical solution to a technical problem. Rather it is simply a mapping that identifies the editor’s preferred presentation edits: If a first version of a first content is selected for human consumption, the editor would like the second section to have this additional content and be presented in this conventional manner. It is exactly like a newspaper editor selecting a headline story for the newspaper in a first section, and then placing the content of the headline story under in a second section under the first section. If the editor wanted to lead with another story the headline would change and consequently the front-page story would change to meet the new headline. Similarly, since stories may require different supporting disclosures, like different pictures, tables or graphs, the format of their presentation would change based upon which story was the headline. Examiner does not dispute that when one makes editorial decisions in order to “maximize conversion rates and effectiveness of [a] website” (Specification, paragraph 0003) that it “affects the operation of a webpage”, (Remarks, page 11) just as the operation of a typesetting printer would change when a newspaper editor reconfigures the front page. But the standard is not whether any change is effectuated in a computer, the standard for a practical application in the context Applicant argues for is “an improvement in the functioning of a computer.” That analysis requires that “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.” The specification has no technical explanation for implementing the tags, and to the extent the function of using the tag is described the function appears to be identical to conditional selection of known computer functions such as presenting information as a list or as a drop-down menu.
Examiner is unpersuaded the claims integrate into a practical application. Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Argument 2: At Remarks, pages 12-14, Applicant discusses only the primary reference of Minnis. Applicant cites a large portion of Claim 1 and argues that Minnis fails to render obvious all of the subject matter on its own.
In response, Examiner previously cited other references for features cited such as Imielinski for the interdependency tag. Applicant fails to discuss any of the other references, and arguing against Minnis alone when the rejection was based on a combination of teachings is nonresponsive to the rejection and improper piecemealing in any event. Consequently, the argument is unpersuasive and the amended claims are taught herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARINA J. GARCIA-CHING whose telephone number is (571)270-7159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday (9:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KARINA J GARCIA-CHING/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights