DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 12/23/2025. Claims 1, 3, 9, 16, and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
Line 21 recites “a different potion” where “a different portion” was apparently intended.
Claim 9:
Line 18 recites “a different potion” where “a different portion” was apparently intended.
Claim 16:
Line 20 recites “a different potion” where “a different portion” was apparently intended.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (US Patent No. 8,379,053, hereinafter “Phillips”) in view of McClintock et al. (US Patent No. 11,194,882, hereinafter “McClintock”).
As to independent claims 1, 9, and 16, Phillips shows a system for tracking scrolling of a web page [col. 1, lines 29-30], a method [Abstract], and a concomitant non-transitory computer-readable medium [fig. 5], comprising:
one or more memories [fig. 1]; and
one or more processors [fig. 1], communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
receive, during a user session, scroll position data associated with the web page, the scroll position data indicating an entry point associated with the web page, an exit point associated with the web page, and a plurality of portions of the web page accessed between a first time at which the entry point was accessed and a second time at which the exit point was accessed; receive, during the user session, timing data associated with the web page, the timing data indicating the first time, the second time, and an elapsed time spent accessing each of the plurality of portions of the web page [“In general, this disclosure is directed to systems and/or methods for identification of areas of interest on a web page or other information resource.
In one example, the disclosure is directed to a method including receiving, at a processor, scroll position data from at least one computing device, the scroll position data indicative of a plurality of scroll positions on the computing device, identifying, using the processor and based on the scroll position data, one or more scroll positions that are maintained for at least a predetermined period of time on the computing device, identifying, using the processor, one or more of a plurality of areas of a web page associated with each of the identified scroll positions, and assigning, using the processor, a frequency for each of the one or more identified areas of the web page at which the associated scroll position was maintained for at least the predetermined period of time on the computing device. {…}” (col. 1, lines 29-45)
“Trend data may be generated for one or more areas of the web page (310). For example, the frequency assigned to one or more areas of the web page over time may be compared to determine what users are viewing today as opposed to what was viewed in the past. {…}” (col. 10, lines 38-42)
For further context/examples of the entry and exit point aspects, see also fig. 7 and its corresponding descriptions (like col. 9, lines 20-67). For example, see how figure 7 shows a navigation trail (with an entry point, intermediate points, and an exit point) that is explicitly described as "concerning the view order" (col. 9, lines 62-67) of the scrolling display.];
generate, based on the scroll position data and the timing data, a graphical report indicating the entry point, the exit point, and the elapsed time spent accessing each of the plurality of portions of the web page [“FIG. 7 illustrates another example interest map 200 for a web page or other information resource which may be generated by interest mapping system 130. In this example, interest map 200 is a “heat map” which highlights areas of interest on a web page 202. Heat map 200 may thus provide visual feedback concerning viewing and the relative amount of viewing for each area of the page. In this example, heat map 200 is a representation of the web page overlaid with information indicative of the areas at which persons in a group of users paused for a predetermined period of time when viewing the webpage or email. The heat map visually conveys information concerning which areas of the web page at which those within group of users paused or didn't pause. For example, areas 204, 214 and 216, shown in crosshatch, may be the areas at which users paused most frequently. In this example, these correspond to the areas mentioned above with respect to the histogram shown in FIG. 6. As another example, areas 208, 210 and 212, shown with right-leaning hatching, may be of secondary interest, and areas 214, 218 and 222, shown with vertical hatching, may be of tertiary interest. Many other levels of interest may also be mapped, and it shall be understood that FIG. 7 is but one example of a heat map that may be generated. {…}
In other examples, an interest map may take the form of an interest graph, table, bar graph, or other numerical or graphical representation for displaying areas of a web page at which users paused for at least a predetermined period of time. An interest graph may also contain information concerning the view order.” (col. 9, lines 20-67) | See also col. 1, lines 45-51 & col. 7, lines 10-38.]; {…}
Even though Phillips explicitly ponders the possibility of iteratively redesigning the web page during the user session based on the scroll position data and the timing data (Phillips: col. 10, lines 01-07), Phillips does not appear to explicitly recite “wherein reconfiguring the web page includes removing at least one content item associated with a first portion of the web page, of the plurality of portions of the web page, or moving the at least one content item to a different potion of the web page, of the plurality of portions of the web page” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, McClintock shows:
iteratively reconfigure, during the user session, the web page based on the scroll position data and the timing data received during the user session, wherein reconfiguring the web page includes removing at least one content item associated with a first portion of the web page, of the plurality of portions of the web page, or moving the at least one content item to a different potion of the web page, of the plurality of portions of the web page [“Techniques are described for determining a priority order for generating, serving, or rendering components of content such as a web page. Behavioral data may be collected from user devices, the behavioral data describing user interactions with components of the content during previous presentations of the content on the user devices. Based on the behavioral data, a score may be determined for one or more of the components, the score based on component dwell times, component presentation frequency, or other information. A priority order for the components may be based on the determined scores, and the components may be generated, served, or rendered in the priority order.” (McClintock: Abstract)
“{…} Dynamic content of the content 128 may include content that is generated in response to the content request 106, e.g., substantially in real time relative to the receiving of the content request 106. Dynamic content may be based on one or more of the following: the identity of the client device 102 that sent the content request 106; one or more characteristics of the client device 102; the identity of a user that generated the content request 106 using the client application(s) 104; or one or more characteristics of the user. Accordingly, dynamic content may change in at least some aspects across multiple renderings and presentations of the content 128.” (McClintock: col. 7, lines 29-39)
“On receiving the content description 126(1), the content service module 110(2) may analyze the components 118 listed in the content description 126(1), and determine a priority order for communicating or presenting the components 118. In implementations illustrated by FIG. 2, the content service module 110(2) may include the order determination module 114. The order determination module 114 may access the component score data 120 and determine the priority order based on the scores for the components 118 of the content 128. In some implementations, the content service module 110(2) or the order determination module 114 may reorder or otherwise modify the content description 126(1) to generate a content description 126(2) that describes the components 118 in the priority order. {…}” (McClintock: col. 9, lines 45-58)
See also McClintock: col. 20, lines 07-22.].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Phillips and McClintock before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate McClintock’s web page iterative reconfiguration techniques into Phillips. The rationale for doing so would have been that Phillips had already explicitly stated its intent to “help analysts to determine whether users are viewing or scanning the page efficiently or in the manner intended by the web page designers {and} further help analysts determine whether users are getting the intended content from the web page, or whether a redesign may be necessary for the desired goals of the web page or other information resource to be achieved” (Phillips: col. 10, lines 01-07). Moreover, McClintock confirmed that presenting the web page’s contents “in a default[/non-reconfigured] order may lead to a delay in presenting one or more components that are useful or interesting to a user viewing the content. For example, when browsing an online store or an electronic commerce web site, a user who navigates to a product page may experience a delay while a product description, price, or product image is rendered. Such a delay may degrade the user's experience and lead to lost sales or lost traffic through the web site.” (McClintock: col. 02, lines 35-43), and also confirmed that “[by] prioritizing the generation, communication, or presentation of those components that are more frequently viewed or interacted with by users, that are viewed longer, or that are more likely to contribute to completed transactions, implementations may reduce the latency of presenting useful or interesting components to users and may thus improve the user experience.” (McClintock: col. 03, lines 50-59). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Phillips and McClintock (hereinafter, the “Phillips-McClintock” combination) in order to obtain the invention as recited in claims 1, 9, and 16.
As to dependent claims 2, 10, and 17, Phillips-McClintock further shows:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive z-index data associated with the plurality of portions of the web page, wherein the z-index data indicates a z position of content accessed at each of the plurality of portions of the web page [e.g. receiving z-index/overlap/overlay data associated with the plurality of portions of the scrolling display, wherein the z-index data indicates a z/overlap/overlay position of content accessed at each of the plurality of portions of the scrolling display (Phillips: col. 3, lines 27-31; col. 6, lines 01-22; & col. 9, lines 20-67)].
As to dependent claims 3, 11, and 18, Phillips-McClintock further shows:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive the scroll position data, the timing data, and the z-index data via a tracking script associated with the web page [e.g. receiving the navigation position data, the timing data, and the z-index data comprises receiving the navigation position data, the timing data, and the z-index data via a tracking script (tracking/monitoring programming/software) associated with the scrolling display (Phillips: col. 3, lines 27-31; col. 6, lines 01-22; & col. 9, lines 20-67)].
As to dependent claims 4, 12, and 19, Phillips-McClintock further shows:
wherein the tracking script is configured to track class labels associated with content associated with the plurality of portions of the web page, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive content data associated with the web page, the content data being based on the class labels [e.g. a tracking script is configured to track class labels/tags associated with content associated with the plurality of portions of the web page, and also receive content data associated with the web page based on the class labels/tags (McClintock: col. 7, lines 09-20)].
As to dependent claims 5 and 13, Phillips-McClintock further shows:
wherein the graphical report includes a screen capture of the web page juxtaposed to one or more linear charts [e.g. the graphical report includes a screen capture of the scrolling display juxtaposed to one or more linear charts (Phillips: figs. 6-8; col. 9, lines 20-67)].
As to dependent claims 6, 14, and 20, Phillips-McClintock further shows:
wherein the graphical report indicates at least one of the entry point, the exit point, a maximum scroll position, a most engaged scroll position, or a least engaged scroll position [e.g. the graphical report indicates at least one of the entry point, the exit point, a maximum scroll position, a most engaged scroll position, or a least engaged scroll position (Phillips: col. 9, lines 20-67)].
As to dependent claim 7, Phillips-McClintock further shows:
wherein the at least one content item is associated with the least engaged scroll position [e.g. the at least one content item may be associated with the least engaged scroll position (Phillips: col. 9, line 20 – col. 10, line 7 | McClintock: Abstract & col. 9, lines 45-58)].
As to dependent claims 8 and 15, Phillips-McClintock further shows:
wherein the graphical report includes a chart associated with at least two of a time axis, a scroll position axis, and a z-index axis [e.g. the graphical report includes a chart associated with at least two of a time axis, a navigation position axis, and a z-index axis (Phillips: figs. 6-8; col. 8, lines 48-63 & col. 9, lines 20-67)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“{…} the foregoing portions of MCCLINTOCK merely disclose determining a priority order for generating, serving, or rendering components of content such as a web page based on behavioral data collected during previous presentations of the content on the user devices. However, claim 9, as amended, recites "reconfiguring, by the navigation tracking device and during the user session, the scrolling display based on the navigation position data and the timing data received during the user session, wherein reconfiguring the scrolling display includes removing at least one content item associated with a first portion of the scrolling display, of the plurality of portions of the scrolling display, or moving the at least one content item to a different potion of the scrolling display, of the plurality of portions of the scrolling display." (Emphasis added). The foregoing portions of MCCLINTOCK are silent regarding any sort of reconfiguration during a user session based on data received during the user session, let alone, "wherein reconfiguring the scrolling display includes removing at least one content item associated with a first portion of the scrolling display, of the plurality of portions of the scrolling display, or moving the at least one content item to a different potion of the scrolling display, of the plurality of portions of the scrolling display," as recited in claim 9, as amended. PHILLIPS is not relied upon for curing the deficiencies of MCCLINTOCK, and PHILLIPS does not cure the deficiencies of MCCLINTOCK.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. First, in response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 U.S.P.Q. 871 (C.C.P.A. 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 U.S.P.Q. 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Applicant attacks McClintock (a reference that was relied upon to teach either “removing at least one content item associated with a first portion of the scrolling display, of the plurality of portions of the scrolling display, or moving the at least one content item to a different potion of the scrolling display, of the plurality of portions of the scrolling display”) for allegedly failing to teach an aspect (to receive data “during a user session”) that was relied upon by the main Phillips reference.
Moreover, it is important to clarify what the claims actually require. As currently presented, the claims receive different types of data (like “scroll position” and “timing” data) “during a user session.” The claims do not specify to which user session the “scroll position data” and the “timing data” belonged and/or when each data was actually recorded, but rather that they be received during a particular (present or future) user session. As such, even Applicant’s admitted scenario wherein McClintock’s data is received “during previous presentations of the content on the user devices” would still reasonably read on the claims as currently recited because McClintock shows receiving the data (even if it were old data, which is not conceded) and iteratively reconfiguring that received data during the same session in which it was received (even if it were a user session occurring after the session where the data was originally recorded).
Thirdly, the Office does not need to rely on the above technicalities because both Phillips (in col. 10, lines 38-42) and McClintock (in col. 7, lines 29-39) show their corresponding “during the user session” functionalities as narrowly as apparently intended.
Therefore, the Office respectfully asserts that the cited art sufficiently teaches the limitations recited in the amended claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571) 272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 5pm).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO R CALDERON IV/
Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171