DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
Claims 19-20 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-22 are newly added.
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 remain pending and stand rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection. Additionally, the Examiner notes the following:
Chan expressly discloses generation of a webpage from a layout data structure built based on vendor input (see: Fig. 5 (518-520), col. 24 lines 18-22, col. 25 lines 3-8). This is also done in relation to configuration criteria, such as targeting criteria, selected products, and product fill algorithms, which are applied to generate the dynamic page (see: col. 8 lines 50-53, col. 26 lines 1-12, col. 7 lines 17-22 & 55-60, col. 19 lines 19-21). As it pertains the combination of featured with generating a second data structure of the plurality of products based on the applied configuration data; and, determining, using the second data structure, at least one recommended product of the plurality of products, these are addressed by the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been amended to recite generating a second data structure of the plurality of products based on the applied configuration data; and,
determining, using the second data structure, at least one recommended product of the plurality of products.
The subject matter of the claim (recited above) does not conform to the disclosure in such a manner in which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applicant actually had possession of at the time of the invention. The term data structure is a term of art and understood as follows:
“a way of organizing and storing data in a computer so that it can be accessed and used efficiently” (https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/dsa/data-structure-meaning/)
“a way of formatting data so that it can be used by a computer program or other system” (https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/data-structure)
That is, a “data structure” represents a particular organization or formatting of data. In the context of the claim, this refers to generating an organization or formatting of the plurality of product by applying configuration data. The most pertinent portion of the disclosure includes 0091, which states:
“In some embodiments, coordinator system 340 may generate a hierarchical data structure of the plurality of products based on the applied configuration data. In some embodiments, coordinator system 340 may determine, using the generated hierarchical data structure, at least one recommended product.”
Near verbatim language is also provided in 0127 and 0176, while 0175 provides the following:
“At step 1208, the system may be configured to generate a landing webpage by generating a webpage using the data structure; applying the configuration data to the plurality of products associated with the at least one user engagement; generating a hierarchical data structure of the plurality of products based on the applied configuration data; determining, using the generated hierarchical data structure, at least one recommended product; generating at least one user interface icon corresponding to the at least one recommended product; inserting the at least one user interface icon into the at least one widget zone of the webpage layout structure.”
Though reciting that the data structure is hierarchical, the specification provides no further detail for how the data structure is actually generated by applying configuration data. While the specification labels the data structure as “hierarchical”, this merely indicates the data structure has some arrangement. This label does not itself provide details of the manner by which the data structure is generated using the configuration data, and is not sufficient to demonstrate possession of the claimed function of generating.
While the specification may literally support the claimed limitation, merely reproducing the claim limitation in the specification or pointing to an original claim does not satisfy the written description requirement where the claim itself does not convey enough information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Elements that are essentially a "black box" will not be sufficient. As described in the specification, the step of generating is a black box for which no details have been provided, other than that it is performing using configuration data in some unspecified manner.
Moreover, whether one of ordinary skill in the art could devise a way to accomplish these functions is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor(s) has shown possession of the claimed invention. This is because the ability to make and use the invention does not satisfy the written description requirement if details of how a function (such as the claimed generating) is performed are not disclosed.
Disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish for possession and it does not satisfy the written description requirement. [See MPEP 2163: II(3)(a)(i), Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406]. Moreover, a specification which does little more than outline goals applicant hopes the claimed invention achieves does not satisfy the written description requirement [see MPEP 2163: II(3)(a)(i), In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984)]. Lastly, the specification lacks adequate description of a “representative number of species” which may satisfy the written description requirement [see MPEP 2163: II(3)(a)(ii)].
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to sufficiently describe any algorithm, steps, or procedures taken to perform the claimed function of generating a second product data structure of the plurality of products based on the applied configuration data raises questions as to whether Applicant truly had possession of this feature at the time of filing.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 21 depend either directly or indirectly from independent claim 1. These claims are thereby rejected along with claim 1 by virtue of their dependency of claim 1.
Regarding claims 10-18 and 22, these claims recite substantially similar limitations and scope as recited in claims 1-9 and 21 such that similar analysis would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, claims 10-18 and 2 are rejected on similar grounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 9, 10-11, 14, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 10,534,851 B1) in view of Dicker (US 2003/0105682).
Regarding claim 1, Chan teaches a computer-implemented system for generating customizable landing webpages, the system comprising:
a memory storing instructions, and, at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (see: col. 3 lines 25-42, col. 7 lines 11-17) to:
receive input from a vendor user device to generate a first data structure, the first data structure comprising a webpage layout structure including at least one widget zone for insertion of a user interface icon (see: Fig. 14 (Step 1 – Select Widget Placement), col. 29 lines 55-64));
receive, from a customer user device, at least one user engagement associated with a plurality of products (see: Fig. 2 (216), col. 12 lines 50-54, col. 12 lines 65-col. 13 line 9);
receive configuration data from the vendor user device, the configuration data comprising a model and at least one target customer (see: col. 13 lines 23-36 & 44-47, col. 20 lines col. 29 line 65-col. 30 line 13, Fig. 12 (Targeting), Fig. 15 (Step 2- Select widget products), Fig. 16 (Product fill algorithms)),
Note: the configuration data includes targeting criteria that identifies at least one target customer (e.g., customers having intent, having certain user data (e.g., repeat customer, geography, etc.), et al.) and product fill algorithms used in selecting displayed products.
generate a landing webpage by:
generating a webpage using the first data structure (see: Fig. 5 (518-520), col. 24 lines 18-22, col. 25 lines 3-8);
applying the configuration data to the plurality of products associated with the at least one user engagement (see: col. 8 lines 50-53, col. 26 lines 1-12, col. 7 lines 17-22 & 55-60, col. 19 lines 19-21);
Note: the targeting criteria, selected products, and product fill algorithms are applied to generate the dynamic page.
determining at least one recommended product of the plurality of products based on the applied configuration data (see: col. 13 lines 54-57, col. 19 lines 28-34, col. 24 lines 48-58);
Note: relevant items are selected for the user in presenting the dynamic page.
generating at least one user interface icon corresponding to the at least one recommended product (see: Fig. 6A (602, 604), Fig. 6B (652, 654), col. 19 lines 36-40 (image_url), col. 24 line 65-col. 25 line 8, col. 25 lines 13-23);
Note: An icon is understood as “may comprise one or more of a graphic file, a symbol, text, or any other visual representation of an object or an action” (see: Specification: 0086). The listed products (including images having url) are analogous to icons.
and
inserting the at least one user interface icon into the at least one widget zone of the webpage layout structure (see: Fig. 6A (602, 604), Fig. 6B (652, 654), col. 19 lines 36-40 (image_url), col. 24 line 65-col. 25 line 8, col. 25 lines 13-23);
Note: the icons are inserted into the dynamic landing page at 602 and in accordance with the settings of Fig. 14, and may also be inserted into dynamic content region 604.
Though disclosing all of the above, Chan does not discloses that the configuration data received from the vendor also includes a time span,
generating a second data structure of the plurality of products based on the applied configuration data; and,
determining at least one recommended product of the plurality of products using the second data structure, and,
upon a customer user interaction with the generated landing webpage, generate a single detail page corresponding to the at least one recommended product.
To this accord, Dicker discloses configuration data including a time span (e.g., Fig. 5 (180), 0102 (specific time period), 0062 & 0156 (last six months)), and generating a data structure of the plurality of products based on the applied configuration data (see: 0077-0078, 0156, Fig. 5 (180-188)), such as by storing items in a similar items table (i.e., data structure) based on popularity, time period, etc. (i.e., configuration criteria).
Dicker then determines, using the data structure of the plurality of products, at least one recommended product of the plurality of products (see: 0167, 0174, Fig. 5 (190-194), Fig. 6, Fig. 7 (290-294), Fig. 11 (404)).
Lastly, from the landing page of Dicker (e.g., Fig. 6, Fig. 11), the user is enabled to select a link associated with one of the recommended items to view product information (or a “detail page” – exemplified by Fig. 12, 0035) for that item (see: Fig. 6, 0168, Fig. 11 (404), 0194, 0203). Accordingly, Dicker also teaches upon a customer user interaction with the generated landing webpage, generate a single detail page corresponding to the at least one recommended product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Chan to have utilized the know technique for using product data structures as taught by Dicker in order to provided personalized recommendations that were more highly relevant to the user's current shopping or browsing purpose (see: Dicker: 0013), thereby improving the system of Chan.
2. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the configuration data further comprises at least one of a targeted product category, an excluded product category, product category diversity, click-to rate optimization, or conversion rate optimization (see: Chan: col. 22 lines 34, col. 25 lines 11-21).
5. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the at least one user engagement comprises any one of selecting a user interface icon corresponding to a product, hovering over a user interface icon corresponding to a product, adding a product to a webpage cart, or purchasing a product (see: Chan: col. 12 line 65-col. 13 line 5, col. 13 line 32-33; Dicker: 0078).
Note: the behavior data of Chan includes products visited and purchased and add to cart actions. Similarly, Dicker utilizes users viewing activities, shopping cart activities, and item rating profiles.
7. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the landing webpage is generated based on a threshold time period or corresponding vendor marketing campaign (see: Chan: col. 11 lines 23-25, col. 15 lines 50-61, col. 23 lines 11-19).
9. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein each recommended product associated with each user interface icon of the generated landing webpage comprises a discounted price or associated coupon (see: Chan: Fig. 6A-6B; Dicker: Fig. 12 (“Our Price” is discounted from “List Price”).
Note: Chan teaches a landing page having a plurality of products. Dicker teaches associating listed products with discounted prices.
Regarding claims 10-11, 14, 16 and 18, these claims recite a parallel method to claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 9 that has substantially similar limitations and scope as addressed above. Accordingly, claims 10-11, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under at least similar rationale applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 9 as would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Dicker as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Guan (US 2008/0120339).
Regarding claim 3 and parallel claim 12, Chan in view of Dicker teaches all of the above as noted but does not teach wherein the configuration data further comprises click-to rate optimization, wherein the click-to rate optimization corresponds at least one product of the plurality of products that maximizes user engagement with the at least on product.
Optimizing for click through rate was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. Moreover, Dicker teaches monitoring click stream data as part of the recommendation process (see: 0179, 0182).
To this accord, Guan demonstrates configuration data further comprises click-to rate optimization, wherein the click-to rate optimization corresponds at least one product of the plurality of products that maximizes user engagement with the at least on product (see: 0006 (recommendation system are optimized for a specific objective function, such as click-through-rate or conversion rate), 0032, 0042-0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Chan in view of Dicker to have utilized the know technique for optimizing for click-through-rate or conversion as taught by Guan in order to have provided a more comprehensive recommendation system using collaborative filtering that was optimizable based on CTR or conversion rates as desired (see: Guan: 0004,
4. The computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the configuration data further comprises conversion rate optimization, wherein the conversion rate optimization corresponds to at least one product of the plurality of products that maximizes purchasing of the at least one product (see: Guan: 0006 (recommendation system are optimized for a specific objective function, such as click-through-rate or conversion rate), 0032, 0042-0043).
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Dicker as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Krasnikov (US 2016/0314478).
Regarding claim 6 and parallel claim 15, Chan in view of Dicker teaches all of the above including applying the configuration data to the plurality of products associated with the at least one user engagement is based on at least one user engagement by the customer user device (see: Chan: col. 12 line 65-col. 13 line 5, col. 13 line 32-33; Dicker: 0016, 0077-0078).
Though teaching the above with respect to customer engagement/interactions, the combination does not teach that the engagement occurs within a threshold time period.
To this accord, Krasnikov teaches a method for analyzing user behavior (e.g., browsing history) that occurs within a threshold time period (e.g., timescale) such as the past few minutes or past several months (see: 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Chan in view of Dicker to have utilized the known technique for analyzing user behavior data that occurs within a specific time period as taught by Krasnikov in order to have provided an improved manner for estimating user interests in accordance with recent behavior to ensure relevance of selected content (see: Krasnikov: 0003, 0006, 0029).
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Dicker as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Bryson (US 2013/0124361).
Regarding claim 8 and parallel claim 17, Chan in view of Dicker teaches all of the above as noted including product recommendations based on the application of the configuration data to the plurality of products associated with the at least one user engagement (see again: Chan: col. 8 lines 50-53, col. 26 lines 1-12, col. 7 lines 17-22 & 55-60, col. 19 lines 19-21). The combination, however, does not teach wherein the at least one recommended product corresponds to a top percentile of products based on the application of the configuration data to the plurality of products associated with the at least one user engagement.
To this accord, Bryson teaches applying configuration data to a plurality of products to determine recommended products (see: 0167, 0170, 0172, Fig. 22 (705-725)), wherein the one or more recommended products corresponds to a top percentile of products (see: 0173-0174, Fig. 22 (740-745)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Chan in view of Dicker to have utilized the known technique for recommended products within a top percentile as taught by Bryson in order to ensure that only products that meet a threshold percentile are recommended, thereby ensuring more relevant product recommendations (see: Bryson: 0173, 0129).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Dicker as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Saurav (US 2025/0094898).
Regarding claim 21 and parallel claim 22, Chan in view of Dicker teaches all of the above as noted but does not teach wherein determining the at least one recommended product of the plurality of products includes ranking the plurality of products using a two-layered model.
To this accord, Saurav teaches a recommendation system that performs determining the at least one recommended product of the plurality of products includes ranking the plurality of products using a two-layered model (see: 0108-0109, 0120-0121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Chan in view of Dicker to have utilized the known technique for recommending products using a multi-layer model as taught by Saurav in order to have increased depth and breadth of assortment of products offered to customers (see: Saurav: 0003).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PTO form 892-U discusses web-interface design using an automated conversion optimization system (see: abstract)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619