DETAILED ACTION
Statement of claims
The present amended application includes:
a Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended.
b Claims 1 , 8 , 15 are pending independent claims and claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 are pending dependent claims in this application.
c Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-20 are being considered on the merits.
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
Claim Rejections -35 U.S.C. & 101
Applicant argues that:
“As amended, independent claim 1 recites "an ambient awareness layer configured to run as a background process of the website, executed by the one or more processors, configured to: receive the event publication from the first web application; identify a second web application to be notified of the detected event; and transmit an event notification to the second web application," and "the second web application configured to operate within the web interface of the website, executed by the one or more processors, configured to: receive the event notification from the ambient awareness layer; and modify an appearance of a second GUI generated by the second web application based on the received event notification." Claims 8 and 15 recite similar features. As with the system in SRIInt'l, the human mind is not equipped to train process electrical notification signals from various web applications and to transmit subsequent electronic notifications to , nor is it equipped to receive interactions with objects in a digital environment and automatically update states of the objects based on those interactions. Therefore, the present claims do not recite a mental process. Consequently, the claims are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
“the claims as amended integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under prong two of Step 2A of the USPTO guidance.”.
Examiner respectfully disagree and submit that:
With regard to claims 1, 8 and 15, they recite abstract idea recitations of “ to detect an action by a user with respect to a first graphical user interface (GUI) generated by the first web application” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.For example, a person is capable of mentally “ detecting …” and using A ambient awareness system, comprising: a first web application configured to operate within a web interface of a website, executed by one or more processors by making a simple plan for the use of modifying an appearance as a step of evaluation and judgement (MPEP 2106). Further, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite further additional elements “A ambient awareness system “, “web application”, “web interface of a website”, “executed by one or more processors” , “action by a user with respect to a first graphical user interface (GUI)” , “ambient awareness layer configured to run as a background process of the website, executed by the one or more processors” , “web application configured to operate within the web interface of the website” are all mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). This does not integrate into a practical application, NOR does it provide significantly more.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claims 1, 8 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, claims 1-20 appear to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant argues that:
“The applied references fail to disclose and would not have rendered obvious at least "an
ambient awareness layer configured to run as a background process of the website, executed by the one or more processors…, as recited in independent claim 1..".
In response, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground rejection based on Chasman et al. (US2015/0039999,) and Tai et al. (US 2022/0253490) .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim 1, the limitations “a first web application configured to …”, “an ambient awareness layer configured to…” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses “means” coupled with functional languages “adapted to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Note that “technical” does not modify “means” with sufficient structure.
A review of the specification does not disclose equivalent structure to perform recited functions for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
: See paragraph [0002]-[0003] , Web applications, specifically those provided in a web interface, are often developed independently of one another and are compiled into a web site for viewing by a user, web applications (e.g., modules) within a web interface.
See para [0006] , [0034] and [0037]- [0038]). an ambient awareness layer resides in the background of a webpage. The ambient awareness layer receives activity indicators from the various web modules and publishes this information to the other web modules and/or to the webpage manager. The ambient awareness layer 350 determines the relevance of the provided information to the different web modules 320 and provides notifications to those web modules 320 and/or the web manager 315 interested in the information (emphasis added).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim elements “a first web application configured to …”, “an ambient awareness layer configured to…” are limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function (se3e [0002]-[0003], [0006] , [0034] and [0037]- [0038]) . Thus, the metes and bounds of claims are vague and indefinite.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 2-7 are affected by the rejection of the claims above.
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 1-20 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.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, Claim 1 recites A ambient awareness system, comprising: a first web application, executed by one or more processors, configured to “ detect an action by a user with respect to a first graphical user interface (GUI) generated by the first web application” . The limitations of “to detect…” is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A ambient awareness system”, “web application, executed by one or more processors” , “action by a user”, “graphical user interface (GUI) generated” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Under Prong 2, The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements to “transmit an event publication in response to the detecting”, “an ambient awareness layer, executed by the one or more processors, configured to: “receive the event publication from the first web application”, “ identify a second web application to be notified of the detected event, “transmit an event notification to the second web application”, “ the second web application, executed by the one or more processors, configured to: receive the event notification from the ambient awareness layer”, “ modify an appearance of a second GUI generated by the second web application based on the received event notification”, which “… to “transmit …”, “identify …” , “receive …”, “modify …”, amounts to data gathering and display which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional elements “an ambient awareness layer, executed by the one or more processors…”, “the second web application, executed by the one or more processors..”, “web application configured to operate within a web interface of a website”, “ambient awareness layer configured to run as a background process of the website” “ a second GUI generated by the second web application based on the received event notification”, are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “transmit …”, “identify …” , “receive …”, “modify …”, are Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, claim 1 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Consequently, claim 1 is not eligible.
Further claim 2, The additional element “wherein the first GUI and the second GUI constitute portions of a website or a web interface”, which merely links the judicial exception to a particular field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h))which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more.
Further claim 3, The additional element, “wherein the ambient awareness layer is further configured to receive an event publication from an external source” which is merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional
Further claim 4, The additional element “wherein the external source includes at least one of an artificial intelligence subsystem, a server status subsystem, or an omni-channel subsystem” which merely links the judicial exception to a particular field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h))which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more.
Further claim 5, The additional element “wherein the ambient awareness layer is further configured to: receive an event publication from a server status subsystem that indicates that a server is experiencing a high load”, “ transmit a notification message to the second web application in response to the event publication”, “wherein the second web application is configured to modify its behavior by rendering output calculations at a user device rather than at the server, in response to the notification message”, which is merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional
Further claim 6, The additional element “wherein the second web application is configured to modify the appearance of the second GUI by displaying or emphasizing certain information, or by highlighting or emphasizing the second GUI”, which is merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Further claim 7, The additional element “wherein the second web application is a webpage manager configured to modify a layout of the webpage and/or enable or disable web applications in response to the event notification”, which is merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional
As to claims 8-14
Similar analysis as claim 1 applies to claim 8.
Further Claim 8: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements “ambient awareness device”, “a communication interface” , “electronic communications”, “a memory”, “event subscriptions” , “processors”, “query the event subscriptions” which are merely recitations of generic computing components (see MPEP §2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The “ambient awareness device”, “a communication interface” , “electronic communications”, “a memory”, “event subscriptions” , “processors”, “query the event subscriptions” are all mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). This does not integrate into a practical application, NOR does it provide significantly more.
Further claim 9, The additional element “wherein the event notification includes an identification of the first web application in which the user action occurred”, which is merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional
Further claim 10, The additional element wherein the event notification causes a modification of behavior or appearance in the second web application”, are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “causes a modification…” merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept
Further claim 11, The additional element “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive an event publication from an external source”, which merely links the judicial exception to a particular field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h))which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more.
Further claim 12, The additional element “wherein the external source includes at least one of an artificial intelligence subsystem, a server status subsystem, or an omni-channel subsystem”, which merely links the judicial exception to a particular field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h))which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more.
Further claim 13, The additional element “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit an event notification to a webpage manager responsible for managing a layout and/or appearance of the webpage”, which merely links the judicial exception to a particular field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h))which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more.
Further claim 14, The additional element “wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a subscription request from the second web application that indicates one or more event properties; and store the event properties in the memory in association with the second web application”, which is merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional
As to claims 15-20:
Similar analysis as claims 1-14 applies to claims 15-20.
For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 is not patent eligible.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chasman et al. (US2015/0039999, Chasman hereinafter) in view of Tai et al. (US 2022/0253490, Tai hereinafter) .
As to claim 1, Chasman teaches a system (e.g., Figure 1 A), comprising:
a first web application configured to operate within a web interface of a website , executed by one or more processors (e.g., “processor system 17”, Figure 1A) , configured to detect an action by a user with respect to a first graphical user interface (GUI) generated by the first web application (e.g., see FIG. 8, para 158, wherein “ a mobile device running a web application executes a web browser, which generates a user interface for a web application” and “the raised event may be triggered by user interaction” in para 162. Thus, the raised event may be triggered by user interaction , Thus, the event represent the action ), and to transmit an event publication in response to the detecting (e.g., para 162, wherein “publish a set of interface events “ para 163, “ the mobile device responds to an event raised by one of the components of the web application, as described below in methods 930 and 940 of FIGS. 9A and 9B”); the one or more processors, configured to: receive the event publication from the first web application (e.g., para 162, “ a client-side controller may handle the events within a component”, “ the functions for all of the component's actions performed in response to detected events” and “to respond to the events by displaying information updates for the identified objects in the enterprise social network feed” in para 165); identify a second web application to be notified of the detected event (e.g., in para 26 , “application identifiers for instances of web applications “, “ being notified of an updated component, may determine which web application instances need to be updated”. Thus, it is noted that: one of the” web applications “ includes a second web application) , and transmit an event notification to the second web application (in para 26 , “web applications “, “ being notified of an updated component, may determine which web application instances need to be updated”..
However, Chasman does not teach an ambient awareness layer configured to run as a background process of the website , the second web application configured to operate within the web interface of the website, executed by the one or more processors, configured to: receive the event notification from the ambient awareness layer , modify an appearance of a second GUI generated by the second web application based on the received event notification
Tai teaches a first web application configured to operate an ambient awareness layer (e.g., “700”, FIG. 7A) configured to run as a background process of the website (e.g., see FIG. 7A, “700”, para [0091] “FIG. 7A, the live edit capability described herein “, “with a graphical user interface tool 700 (e.g., alternatively referred to as a real-time placement injector) for easy editing of website content. “),
a second web application configured to operate within the web interface of the website , executed by the one or more processors, configured to: receive the event notification from the ambient awareness layer (e.g., para 91, 93, “to insert an HTML tag (through point-and-click operations) while the operator is browsing live on the website or web application. Once website content (alternatively referred to as a “placement”) has been added or changed “, “The live edit capability can allow content blocks to be added to already-deployed websites”, “to monitor a webpage so that any added content can be re-published continuously, or as needed, when a designated zone for the content on the webpage is accessed by a user”, “the live edit capability can be used to publish real-time micro blocks of interactive content onto an existing website”, “the content block could recite “Hey John, click here for your unique 25% off offer.” The placement can be republished automatically with rules that cause the content to update after several seconds, even if the user never left the webpage.”, “ displaying such content are not user-specific and can be used to recite only a generic statement, such as “Hey visitor, click here for your 10% off offer.”
Thus, it is noted that : the “website content (alternatively referred to as a “placement”) has been added “, “content blocks to be added to already-deployed websites” include the a second web application
“click here for your 10% off offer", “click an add button 712” include the “event notification, therefore receive the event notification from the ambient awareness layer) ; and modify an appearance of a second GUI generated by the second web application based on the received event notification (e.g., para (0093], The placement can be republished automatically with rules that cause the content to update after several seconds, even if the user never left the webpage. The displayed user name and the statement (e.g., describing an available price discount) can be different depending on the user”, “ displaying such content are not user-specific and can be used to recite only a generic statement, such as “Hey visitor, click here for your 10% off offer.”) and “a JAVASCRIPT mutation listener to detect any webpage changes (e.g., at periodic intervals, such as every 200 ms). A fallback time-based loop can be attached to determine if a placement (e.g., a banner) can be added. When the SDK determines (step 738) that the placement can be added, the real-time tool can add the placement” in para 96
Thus, 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 Chasman with those of Tai because both references are directed to related systems addressing similar technical problems within the same field and seek to improve system performance, reliability, and efficiency.
Chasman et al. discloses to detect an action by a user with respect to a first graphical user interface (GUI) generated by the first web application while Tai et al. discloses an ambient awareness layer configured to run as a background process of the website; and the second web application configured to operate within the web interface of the website, executed by the one or more processors, configured to:receive the event notification from the ambient awareness layer; and modify an appearance of a second GUI generated by the second web application based on the received event notification.
Incorporating the teachings of Tai into the system of Chasman et al. would have been a predictable and logical modification, yielding improved operational robustness and efficiency without requiring undue experimentation.
Such a combination would merely involve the substitution or integration of known elements performing their established functions, as taught by Tai et al., into the system of Chasman, consistent with design incentives and market demands for improved performance and scalability. Moreover, Tai et al. explicitly recognize benefits to provide “ an improved online experience by ensuring that users are taking advantage of all available benefits in the online service, to ensure higher user retention and more active user engagement with the online service” (see para [0002], Tai) —that would naturally be desirable in the system of Chasman.
Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Chasman with Tai et al., and the combination represents no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their known functions.
As to claim 2, Chasman does not teach wherein the first GUI and the second GUI constitute portions of a website or a web interface.
However, Tai teaches s wherein the first GUI and the second GUI constitute portions of a website or a web interface (e.g. para 93, “the content block could recite “Hey John, click here for your unique 25% off offer.” ).
Thus, 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 Chasman by adopting the teachings of Tai to provide “ an improved online experience by ensuring that users are taking advantage of all available benefits in the online service, to ensure higher user retention and more active user engagement with the online service” (see para [0002], Tai).
As to claim 3, Chasman does not teach wherein the ambient awareness layer is further configured to receive an event publication from an external source.
However, Tai teaches wherein the ambient awareness layer is further configured to receive an event publication from an external source (e.g., para 93, “The content block can present the user with data retrieved from one or more of these third party service providers”).
Thus, 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 Chasman by adopting the teachings of Tai to provide “ an improved online experience by ensuring that users are taking advantage of all available benefits in the online service, to ensure higher user retention and more active user engagement with the online service” (see para [0002], Tai).
As to claim 4, Chasman does not teach wherein the external source includes at least one of an artificial intelligence subsystem, a server status subsystem, or an omni-channel subsystem.
However, Tai teaches wherein the external source includes at least one of an artificial intelligence subsystem , a server status subsystem (e.g., see para [0085] , the systems and methods can provide machine intelligence that enables online service providers to be richer,”) , (e.g., see Fig. 7. Arrangement of components in a distributed crawling system), or an omni-channel subsystem (e.g., para 78, “ an omni-channel frequency cap can be implemented that limits how many times a user can see one or more promotions. The promotion frequency cap can enable an operator of an online service to specify a maximum number of times a user can see a single promotion. ).
Thus, 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 Chasman by adopting the teachings of Tai to provide “ an improved online experience by ensuring that users are taking advantage of all available benefits in the online service, to ensure higher user retention and more active user engagement with the online service” (see para [0002], Tai)
As to claim 6, Chasman does not teach wherein the second web application is configured to modify the appearance of the second GUI by displaying or emphasizing certain information, or by highlighting or emphasizing the second GUI.
However, Tai teaches wherein the second web application is configured to modify the appearance of the second GUI by displaying or emphasizing certain information (e.g., para 93, “the content block could recite “Hey John, click here for your unique 25% off offer.” The placement can be republished automatically with rules that cause the content to update after several seconds, even if the user never left the webpage. The displayed user name and the statement (e.g., describing an available price discount) can be different depending on the user”) , or by highlighting or emphasizing the second GUI .
Thus, 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 Chasman by adopting the teachings of Tai to provide “ an improved online experience by ensuring that users are taking advantage of all available benefits in the online service, to ensure higher user retention and more active user engagement with the online service” (see para [0002], Tai)
As to claim 7, Chasman does not teach wherein the second web application is a webpage manager configured to modify a layout of the webpage and/or enable or disable web applications in response to the event notification.
However, Tai teaches wherein the second web application is a webpage manager configured to modify a layout of the webpage (para 58, “ adjusting a display banner or video ad load, providing improved content quality (e.g., UHD quality video streams) for high value users, and/or providing cosmetic updates for certain users (e.g., VIP users). The cosmetic updates can include, for example, one or more changes to a layout, color scheme, text, images, video, or audio in a graphical user interface for the users.” ) and/or enable or disable web applications in response to the event notification (e.g., see para 97, “a content placement may overlap with one or more other webpage elements. To avoid such overlap, inserted placement items can include a forced height dimension upon load, which the operator's website can use to ensure the placement is included as part of the webpage layout, without overlapping other website elements. When the forced height dimension does not fully address the overlap issue, the website's JAVASCRIPT can be re-instantiated to forcefully modify the webpage layout.).
Thus, 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 Chasman by adopting the teachings of Tai to provide “ an improved online experience by ensuring that users are taking advantage of all available benefits in the online service, to ensure higher user retention and more active user engagement with the online service” (see para [0002], Tai).
As to claim 8, see rejection of claim 1 above . Chasman teaches further a communication interface ; a memory ; and one or more processors (see FIG. 1A) .
However, Tai teaches further query the event subscriptions stored in the memory for a second web application to be notified of the detected event (para 96, “to detect any webpage changes (e.g., at periodic intervals, such as every 200 ms). A fallback time-based loop can be attached to determine if a placement (e.g., a banner) can be added. “, para 58, “ adjusting a display banner or video ad load, providing improved content quality (e.g., UHD quality video streams) for high value users, and/or providing cosmetic updates for certain users (e.g., VIP users). The cosmetic updates can include, for example, one or more changes to a layout, color scheme, text, images, video, or audio in a graphical user interface for the users.”) ; and transmit an event notification to the second web application that informs the second web application of the user action (e.g., para 97, “ a content placement may overlap with one or more other webpage elements. To avoid such overlap, inserted placement items can include a forced height dimension upon load, which the operator's website can use to ensure the placement is included as part of the webpage layout, without overlapping other website elements. When the forced height dimension does not fully address the overlap issue, the website's JAVASCRIPT can be re-instantiated to forcefully modify the webpage layout”).
Thus, 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 Chasman by adopting the teachings of Tai to provide “ an improved online experience by ensuring that users are taking advantage of all available benefits in the online service, to ensure higher user retention and more active user engagement with the online service” (see para [0002], Tai).
As to claim 9, Chasman does not teach wherein the event notification includes an identification of the first web application in which the user action occurred.
However, Tai teaches wherein the event notification includes an identification of the first web application in which the user action occurred (e.g., para [0096] wherein “ When a user visits an operator's website (step 732), the website can begin loading (step 734) and the SDK can be used to attach (step 736) a JAVASCRIPT mutation listener to detect any webpage changes (e.g., at periodic intervals, such as every 200 ms). A fallback time-based loop can be attached to determine if a placement (e.g., a banner) can be added.”) .
Thus, 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 Chasman by adopting the teachings of Tai to provide “ an improved online experience by ensuring that users are taking advantage of all available benefits in the online service, to ensure higher user retention and more active user engagement with the online service” (see para [0002], Tai).
As to claim 10, Chasman does not teach wherein the event notification causes a modification of behavior or appearance in the second web application.
However, Tai teaches wherein the event notification causes a modification of behavior or appearance in the second web application (e.g., para 96, “The mutation listener can then be used to detect (step 740) webpage changes. For example, the listener can determine (step 742) that a placement has been erased from the webpage, particularly when a single page application is re-rendered. At this point, the SDK can intervene to ensure that the webpage includes the placement (e.g., by adding or re-rendering the placement)”) .
Thus, 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 Chasman by adopting the teachings of Tai to provide “ an improved online experience by ensuring that users are taking advantage of all available benefits in the online service, to ensure higher user retention and more active user engagement with the online service” (see para [0002], Tai).
As to claims 11-13 see rejection of claims 3-4 and 7 above.
As to claim 14, Chasman does not teach, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a subscription request from the second web application that indicates one or more event properties; and store the event properties in the memory in association with the second web application.
However, Tai teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive a subscription request from the second web application that indicates one or more event properties (e.g., para 96, “When a user visits an operator's website (step 732), the website can begin loading (step 734) and the SDK can be used to attach (step 736) a JAVASCRIPT mutation listener to detect any webpage changes (e.g., at periodic intervals, such as every 200 ms)”; and store the event properties in the memory in association with the second web application (e.g., para 96, wherein “A fallback time-based loop can be attached to determine if a placement (e.g., a banner) can be added”. Thus, store the event properties in the memory in association with the second web application).
Thus, 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 Chasman by adopting the teachings of Tai to provide “ an improved online experience by ensuring that users are taking advantage of all available benefits in the online service, to ensure higher user retention and more active user engagement with the online service” (see para [0002], Tai).
As to claim 15 , see rejection of claims 1 and 8 above.
As to claims 16-20, see rejection of claims 4, 7, 9-10 and 14 above.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chasman et al. (US2015/0039999, Chasman hereinafter) in view of Tai et al. (US 2022/0253490, Tai hereinafter) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of VIJINI MALLAWAARACHCHI et al. (“Change Detection and Notification of Web Pages”, VIJINI hereinafter, 16 Feb 2020) .
As to claim 5, Chasman and Tai do not teach wherein the ambient awareness layer is further configured to: receive an event publication from a server status subsystem that indicates that a server is experiencing a high load; and transmit a notification message to the second web application in response to the event publication, wherein the second web application is configured to modify its behavior by rendering output calculations at a user device rather than at the server, in response to the notification message.
However, VIJINI teaches to: receive an event publication from a server status subsystem that indicates that a server is experiencing a high load (e.g., see page 15:8, wherein “a large number of webpages exist, the computational load for the server will increase as the server must identify changes in each of the webpages added by users”.) ; and transmit a notification message to the second web application in response to the event publication, wherein the second web application is configured to modify its behavior by rendering output calculations at a user device rather than at the server, in response to the notification message (e.g., 15:8, “3.1 Server-based Architecture”, “Figure 4 consists of the main server, which polls webpages periodically to track changes, and sends alerts about these changes to the subscribed users (clients) by email notifications. If a large number of webpages exist, the computational load for the server will increase as the server must identify changes in each of the webpages added by users.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Chasman and Tai by adopting the teachings of VIJINI for “The use of CDN systems allows users to reduce the browsing time, and facilitates users with the ability to check for changes on webpages of their interest “, “improvements in detection rates, efficient crawling mechanisms and user-friendly notification techniques” (see page 15:2, VIJINI).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Durairaj et al. (US 11, 989,395) discloses An interface modification system includes one or more processors configured to provide, to one or more client devices, a graphical representation of a web application. The graphical representation has a first layer including one or more components of the web application and a second layer configured for secondary interactions with the one or more components. The one or more processors are configured to receive, via the second layer and from the one or more client devices, feedback associated with the one or more components. Additionally, the one or more processors are configured to generate an incident record including the feedback and store the incident record in an incident database.
Venkatesh et al. (US 11, 652,871) disclose Access to functionality of a web application can be provided via microapps. A microapp platform can include a microapp orchestrator that administrators may use to create and deploy microapps. A microapp may include a simple user interface with one or more elements that are associated with a function of a web application. When the microapp is deployed to a user computing device, the user can use the elements of the microapp's user interface to invoke the function of the web application without needing to directly interact with the web application..
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 ABDOU K SEYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at 5712724215. 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.
/ABDOU K SEYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights