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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on December 6, 2023 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609, and therefore has been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4–13, and 15–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0196932 A1 (“Adika”).
Claim 1
Adika discloses:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
“FIG. 1 illustrates a flowchart of an exemplary process [100] for analyzing interaction of a plurality of users with an application to generate recommended adaptation(s) to the application.” Adika ¶ 63.
receiving, by a first device and from a user device associated with a user, a first request to login to a first website,
The first three steps of instant claim 1 each occur within block 102 of Adika’s process 100. Specifically, “[a]s shown at 102, the process 100 starts with the tracking agent 212 executed on one or more of the plurality of client terminals 201 used by one or more of the plurality of users 250 monitoring (tracking) interaction of the associated user(s) 250 with the application 210.” Adika ¶ 73.
Here, Adika performs the first step of instant claim 1 when, during step 102, the tracking agent 212 tracks a first interaction from the user 250 interacting with the application 210. (As will be discussed later, step 102 will continue by tracking subsequent interactions, i.e., the claimed “first navigation flow”).
As required by the claim, Adika discloses that “the application 210 may be a website and/or a web application available from one or more remote servers,” Adika ¶ 70, hence, this first interaction involves the user directing his or her browser to request a first page of the website.
Furthermore, with respect to the “login” limitation, the present application contemplates receiving any number of types of credentials beyond merely a username and password, such as “one or more tokens, or any other information suitable for authentication.” (Spec. ¶ 34). To that end, Adika likewise discloses that “the tracking agent 212 assigns a unique user ID to each user 250 in order to identify a specific user 250 over a plurality of sessions the specific user 250 conducts with the application 250.” Adika ¶ 86.
wherein the first website is associated with a first plurality of pages;
“The application and/or website may comprise one or more pages through which the users may navigate in order to achieve one or more goals of the application.” Adika ¶ 63.
causing a first navigation flow to be displayed on the user device, wherein the first navigation flow indicates a display order for the first plurality of pages;
“The tracking agent 212 may first identify one or more objects presented by the application 210 to the users through, for example, a GUI displayed to the user 250 on a display of the client terminal 201. Moreover, the application 210 may comprise a plurality of pages through which the user 250 may navigate using the GUI in order to accomplish one or more goals of the application 210.” Adika ¶ 75.
causing the user device to monitor an interaction between the user device and a page indicated by the first navigation flow,
During the tracking performed in step 102, “tracking agent 212 generates an action event for each action made by the user 250 through the user interface 208.” Adika ¶ 82.
wherein the interaction comprises a quantity of time the user spends with the page;
“The tracking agent 212 may further analyze the interaction of the user 250 with the application 210 in order to identify an active or idle user state. The tracking agent 212 may monitor and/or log the idle time during which the user 250 is not interacting with the application 210 by, for example, measuring the time between consecutive action events.” Adika ¶ 84.
generating, based on the interaction, a second navigation flow to be displayed on the user device,
“As shown at 104, the analysis module 222 creates a model of the application 210 based on the action events received from the tracking agent 212,” Adika ¶ 88, and “analyzes the created model to identify one or more behavioral pattern of at least some of the users 250 interacting with the application 210” at 106, Adika ¶ 93, so that “at 108, based on the identified behavioral pattern(s), the analysis module 222 may generate one or more recommendations for adapting the application 210 in order to increase probability of goal(s) accomplishment by the users 250 using the application 210.” Adika ¶ 104. The recommendations generated at 108 “may include, for example, adding, removing, changing, relocating and/or the like one or more of the displayed objects and/or pages in order to adapt one or more aspects of the application 210 layout, for example, . . . the user navigation flow (progress).” Adika ¶ 104.
wherein the second navigation flow causes the first plurality of pages to be displayed in a preferred order;
For example, “the analysis module 222 may identify a behavioral pattern in which one or more pages are a ‘corridors’ page which is only used to progress to another page” based on in part on the amount of time spent on that page, and therefore, “the analysis module 222 may recommend one or more adaptations to the application 210 layout to bypass the corridor pages in order to simplify the navigation path of the users 250 and increase the probability for accomplishing the goal(s) of the application 210.” Adika ¶ 106.
receiving a second request to login to a second website,
“Naturally, the process 100 may be applied to monitor, analyze and generate recommendations for a plurality of applications.” Adika ¶ 66. Accordingly, much like Adika’s process 100 performs step 102 to “monitor” a first one of the plurality of applications, Adika further discloses performing this same step to “monitor” a second one of the plurality of applications. As mentioned above, the applications may each be respective websites, see Adika ¶ 70, and the “login” information may include the tracking agent 212 assigning a unique user ID to each user 250. Adika ¶ 86.
wherein the second website is associated with a second plurality of pages;
Likewise, each application and/or website “may comprise one or more pages through which the users may navigate in order to achieve one or more goals of the application.” Adika ¶ 63.
determining, based on the second navigation flow, a third navigation flow that causes the second plurality of pages to be displayed in the preferred order; and
“Naturally, the process 100 may be applied to monitor, analyze and generate recommendations for a plurality of applications.” Adika ¶ 66. Accordingly, much like Adika’s process 100 performs step 102 to “analyze and generate recommendations” for a first one of the plurality of applications, this paragraph further discloses performing the same steps to “analyze and generate recommendations” for the second one of the plurality of applications.
Notably, in at least some embodiments, instead of merely generating recommendations for the second application from monitoring the users’ interactions with the same, second website, “the analysis module 222 generates one or more of the adaptation recommendations based on knowledge acquired by analyzing one or more other applications presenting one or more similar aspects as the application 210, for example, the structure, the appearance, the user navigation flow (progress), the objective(s), the usage mode(s), the user interface, the operation mode(s) and/or the like.” Adika ¶ 109. In other words, Adika’s analysis module 222 is able to use what it learns from modeling the users’ interactions with a first application 210, and apply it to make recommendations about the user navigation flow on a second application 210.
causing the third navigation flow to be displayed on the user device.
“The analysis module 222 may send the created display element(s) to one or more of the adaptation agents 214 executed on one or more of the client terminals 201 to present the created display element(s) according to the recommended adaption(s) when the application 210 is executed and used by the associated user 250.” Adika ¶ 113.
Claim 4
Adika and Muilenburg teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein the preferred order is associated with one or more navigation parameters,
The recommendations generated at step 108 are associated with a model of the application 210 that method 100 creates at step 104, based on behavioral patterns that method 100 gleans from observing the users’ interactions with application 210 relative to the model. See Adika ¶¶ 93 and 104. The model falls within the scope of “one or more navigational parameters,” because it comprises “a plurality of nodes each representing a page of the application 210 and one or more weighted edges,” each of which “connects a pair of the nodes where the edge weight indicates significance (probability) of a transition between a source node (page) and a destination node (page).” Adika ¶ 90.
and wherein determining the third navigation flow is further based on the one or more navigation parameters.
“As shown at 106, the analysis module 222 analyzes the created model to identify one or more behavioral pattern of at least some of the users 250 interacting with the application 210,” Adika ¶ 93, and “based on the identified behavioral pattern(s), the analysis module 222 may generate one or more recommendations for adapting the application 210 in order to increase probability of goal(s) accomplishment by the users 250 using the application 210.” Adika ¶ 104.
Claim 5
Adika and Muilenburg teach the computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising:
modifying, by the first device and based on user interaction with the first plurality of pages, the navigation parameters; and
“Reference is now made to FIG. 4, which is a schematic illustration of a recommended adaptation suggested for an exemplary application, according to some embodiments of the present invention. An exemplary application such as the application 210 is represented by flow graph such as the flow graph 300 [shown in FIG. 3] created by an analysis module such as the analysis module 222 . . . . Analyzing the flow model 300 the analysis module 222 may identify a behavioral pattern in which at least some users 250 arriving at the page P6 from the page P3 typically spend very little time, for example, below the pre-defined time threshold before proceeding to the following page(s), for example, P7, P8 or P9,” and therefore, the analysis module 222 may “recommend adapting the application 210 by adding a link menu 402 in the page P3. This may allow users 250 to directly navigate from the page P3 directly to their desired destination page P7, P8 or P9 by selecting a respective link L-P7, L-P8 or L-P9 respectively without first going through the page P6.” Adika ¶ 110.
In other words, the analysis module 222 modifies the original model 300 of the application shown in FIG. 3, producing a modified version of the model 400, shown in FIG. 4. Recall from the rejection of claim 3 that the claimed navigation parameters are mapped to Adika’s model, and all of its components.
sending the modified navigation parameters to the user device.
“The analysis module 222 may send the created display element(s) to one or more of the adaptation agents 214 executed on one or more of the client terminals 201 to present the created display element(s) according to the recommended adaption(s) when the application 210 is executed and used by the associated user 250.” Adika ¶ 113.
Claim 6
Adika discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein causing the user device to monitor the interaction comprises causing to monitor an event trigger associated with a change in a next page that is displayed on the user device.
During the tracking performed in step 102, “tracking agent 212 generates an action event for each action made by the user 250 through the user interface 208.” Adika ¶ 82.
Claim 7
Adika discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a first code associated with a first page of the first plurality of pages; and determining a second code associated with a second page of the first plurality of pages, wherein: the second page is different from the first page; and the first code and the second code are configured to permit a second device to cause the second navigation flow to be displayed for the user device.
“Every time a page of the application 210 is loaded, the tracking agent 212 analyzes the loaded page, for example, a Document Object Model (DOM), a web page, an application screen and or the like to identify the displayed objects presented in the loaded page. The displayed objects may include, for example, a selection field, a scroll bar, drop down selection list (menu), a roll down selection list, an icon, a bookmark, a link field and/or the like. Each of the identified displayed objects may be associated with a set of one or more attributes each assigned with a respective value, for example, DOM element properties for a web page and/or other descriptive attributes for a mobile application page.” Adika ¶ 76.
“The tracking agent 212 may obtain the set of attributes of the displayed object(s) by analyzing the loaded page, for example, the DOM, the webpage and/or the like by parsing and/or analyzing the webpage content, for example, Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML) constituting the page, scripting languages included in the page and/or the like.” Adika ¶ 77.
Claim 8
Adika discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein a first page of the first plurality of pages comprises a home page and a second page of the first plurality of pages comprises a bill pay view.
“Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art.” MPEP § 2112.02(III.) (citing In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The same doctrine applies to method claims. See MPEP § 2111.05 (“The rationale behind the printed matter cases, in which, for example, written instructions are added to a known product, has been extended to method claims in which an instructional limitation is added to a method known in the art.”).
In this case, Adika discloses that “[t]he application 210 include pages P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8 and P9 represented by nodes of the flow graph 300 such as the nodes S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 and S9 respectively.” Adika ¶ 110. Adika does not need to disclose whether the underlying meaning within any of these pages conveys the concept of “home” or “bill pay” to a human reader to anticipate claim 8, because the concepts of “home” and “bill pay” are not functionally related to the method for determining a navigational flow for first and second websites. To the extent that “home” could be more narrowly interpreted to require a particular order in the navigational flow, Adika explicitly discloses that each of the applications have a starting page, e.g., P1 represented as S1.
Claim 9
Adika discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the causing the user device to monitor the interaction between the user device and the page indicated by the first navigation flow further comprises:
causing the user device to determine a quantity of interactions the user has with the page indicated by the first navigation flow.
“The tracking agent 212 generates an action event for each action made by the user 250 through the user interface 208, for example, a movement of the pointing device, a selection (click) made by the pointing device, a position of the pointing device cursor, a swipe over the touch screen and/or touch pad, a hoover over an area of the display, a text insertion and/or the like.” Adika ¶ 82. “The analysis module 222 may identify one or more behavior characteristics of the users 250, for example, . . . frequency of using the application 210 and/or the like and associate between the users segments and typical behavioral pattern(s).” Adika ¶ 101.
Claim 10
Adika discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the first device, the preferred order based on at least one of: an order that the user accessed each page of the first plurality of pages; a quantity of interactions the user has with each page of the first plurality of pages; or a quantity of time the user spends viewing each page of the first plurality of pages.
“The analysis module 222 may further expose one or more barriers, for example, an action or a series of actions that are typically made by users 250 abandoning the application 210, a page that may typically present a difficulty for the user(s) 250 to progress towards the goal(s) (e.g. transitioning form a trial and/or explored product towards a registered and/or purchased product) and/or the like. The analysis module 222 may expose the barrier(s) by dividing the navigation flow and/or series of actions of the user(s) 250 to pairs and identifying the critical pair(s) between which the user(s) 250 abandoned the flow of the application 210.” Adika ¶ 98.
“The analysis module 222 may identify one or more behavior characteristics of the users 250, for example, time spent in one or more of the pages, a total time spent interacting with the application 210, typical navigation flow through the application 210, typical actions, encountered errors, frequency of using the application 210 and/or the like and associate between the users segments and typical behavioral pattern(s).” Adika ¶ 101.
Claim 11
Adika discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising:
receiving one or more user inputs regarding a user’s navigation flow preferences,
During the tracking performed in step 102, “tracking agent 212 generates an action event for each action made by the user 250 through the user interface 208.” Adika ¶ 82.
wherein the preferred order is further based on the one or more user inputs regarding the user’s navigation flow preferences.
“As shown at 104, the analysis module 222 creates a model of the application 210 based on the action events received from the tracking agent 212,” Adika ¶ 88, and “analyzes the created model to identify one or more behavioral pattern of at least some of the users 250 interacting with the application 210” at 106, Adika ¶ 93, so that “at 108, based on the identified behavioral pattern(s), the analysis module 222 may generate one or more recommendations for adapting the application 210 in order to increase probability of goal(s) accomplishment by the users 250 using the application 210.” Adika ¶ 104. The recommendations generated at 108 “may include, for example, adding, removing, changing, relocating and/or the like one or more of the displayed objects and/or pages in order to adapt one or more aspects of the application 210 layout, for example, . . . the user navigation flow (progress).” Adika ¶ 104.
Claim 12
Adika discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the first navigation flow comprises a mapping between a key and a corresponding link to one of the first plurality of pages.
The recommendations generated at step 108 are associated with a model of the application 210 that method 100 creates at step 104, based on behavioral patterns that method 100 gleans from observing the users’ interactions with application 210 relative to the model. See Adika ¶¶ 93 and 104. The model falls within the scope of “one or more navigational parameters,” because it comprises “a plurality of nodes each representing a page of the application 210 and one or more weighted edges,” each of which “connects a pair of the nodes where the edge weight indicates significance (probability) of a transition between a source node (page) and a destination node (page).” Adika ¶ 90.
Claims 13 and 15–18
Claims 13 and 15–18 recite a general-purpose computing device configured to perform exactly the same computer-implemented method recited in claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 10. They are therefore rejected according to the same findings provided above for their corresponding claims, taken in conjunction with Adika’s further disclosure of implementing the same method on a general-purpose computing device with a memory and processor for executing instructions stored thereon. See Adika ¶¶ 55–62.
Claims 19 and 20
Claims 19 and 20 recite non-transitory computer-readable media that store the same instructions stored in the memory element of claims 13 and 17. Claims 19 and 20 are therefore rejected over the same findings as provided above for claims 13 and 17.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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) 2, 3, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adika as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0082780 A1 (“Muilenburg”).
Claim 2
Adika teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein the preferred order defines a persistent navigation flow for the user across a plurality of websites
“[T]he analysis module 222 generates one or more of the adaptation recommendations based on knowledge acquired by analyzing one or more other applications presenting one or more similar aspects as the application 210, for example, the structure, the appearance, the user navigation flow (progress), the objective(s), the usage mode(s), the user interface, the operation mode(s) and/or the like.” Adika ¶ 109 (emphasis added). In other words, Adika’s analysis module 222 is able to use what it learns from modeling the users’ interactions with a first application 210, and apply it to make recommendations about the user navigation flow on a second application 210.
It is respectfully submitted that Adika does not need to teach that its plurality of websites (applications 210) are “associated within an industry,” because claim language describing the environment in which the invention operates is not considered a limitation on the claimed invention itself. Nazomi Communications, Inc., v. Nokia Corp., 739 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed Cir. 2014) (citing Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, Inc., 607 F.3d 784, 794-95 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and Advanced Software Design Corporation v. Fiserv, Inc., 641 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Nevertheless, even if claim 2 were interpreted to require an association between the plurality of websites as being within an industry, such a requirement was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Specifically, Muilenburg teaches both this limitation and nearly all of the other limitations that claim 2 incorporates by reference to claim 1. For context, and to demonstrate the current strength of the conclusion of obviousness, Muilenburg’s disclosure of claim 2 will be discussed together with all of the elements of claim 1 incorporated into claim 2 that Muilenburg also teaches.
Muilenburg teaches:
A method comprising:
“FIG. 6 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of a method 600 for configuring a website using user profile information.” Muilenburg ¶ 138.
In a first step 610 of method 600, “one or more user profiles of users visiting one or more of the websites in the network of affiliated websites may be generated . . . as described above in conjunction with FIG. 4,” Muilenburg ¶ 139, and therefore, method 600 will be discussed together with the steps of the method of FIG. 4, which, as explained, are performed within step 610 of method 600.
receiving, by a first device and from a user device associated with a user, a first request to login to a first website,
During step 420, a user interacts with a respective “context aware website” from among a network of affiliated context aware websites. Muilenburg ¶ 103. These interactions “may comprise user identification information,” Muilenburg ¶ 104, which are received by the system when the user logs in to the website. See Muilenburg ¶¶ 159 and 141.
wherein the first website is associated with a first plurality of pages;
When visiting any of the foregoing websites, “the WebPages or other resources accessed by a particular user 250.” Muilenburg ¶ 63. “For example, in a system directed to automobile marketing, the detected activities may relate to whether a particular user 250 accessed information about particular vehicle models and/or vehicle technologies, such as Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV), hybrid drive systems, or the like.” Muilenburg ¶ 63.
causing a first navigation flow to be displayed on the user device,
“The computing devices 252 may comprise an application 254 capable of rendering content generated by one or more of the context aware websites 230.” Muilenburg ¶ 54.
causing the user device to monitor an interaction between the user device and a page indicated by the first navigation flow,
Also at step 420, in addition to the user actually interacting with and viewing the respective website, “each of the affiliated sites may be configured to monitor user interactions and/or gather user interaction data at the respective website.” Muilenburg ¶ 103.
generating, based on the interaction, a second navigation flow to be displayed on the user device,
“At step 490, the user profile generated at step 480 or obtained at step 470 may be updated to reflect the user behavior and/or profile information in the interaction data records received at step 440. As discussed above, this may include, but is not limited to: updating user preferences related to the product and/or service offered by the network of affiliated websites (e.g., preferred vehicle type, color, options, or the like); updating user preferences that are not directly related to the product and/or service offered by the network of affiliated websites (e.g., political, point-of-view, interest, demographics, etc.); updating information relating to the user's "ripeness" to make a purchase; and so on.” Muilenburg ¶ 108.
receiving a second request to login to a second website,
“At step 620, method 600 may attempt to access one of the websites in the network of affiliated websites (e.g., a website configured by the method 600). For example, as described above, this may comprise accessing any of the manufacturer website, franchise group website, franchise website, and/or CAP website.” Muilenburg ¶ 140.
wherein the second website is associated with a second plurality of pages;
When visiting any of the foregoing websites, “the WebPages or other resources accessed by a particular user 250.” Muilenburg ¶ 63. “For example, in a system directed to automobile marketing, the detected activities may relate to whether a particular user 250 accessed information about particular vehicle models and/or vehicle technologies, such as Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV), hybrid drive systems, or the like.” Muilenburg ¶ 63.
determining, based on the second navigation flow, a third navigation flow that causes the second plurality of pages to be displayed in the preferred order; and
“At step 650, the user profile may be accessed to determine one or more user preferences in the user profile. The user preferences accessed at step 650 may include, but are not limited to: user behavioral and/or usability preferences of the user; content preferences of the user; product preferences of the user; user locale; user ‘ripeness’ (e.g., readiness to make a purchase); and the like.” Muilenburg ¶ 143.
The assets of this second website are obtained, and then “[a]t step 670, a website configuration may be generated based on the assets obtained at step 660 and the user preferences accessed at step 650. As discussed above, generating the website configuration may comprise applying global branding and/or promotional content to the website; selecting content to display on the website; and/or selecting and/or adapting content based on the ‘ripeness’ of the user.” Muilenburg ¶ 148.
wherein the preferred order defines a persistent navigation flow for the user across a plurality of websites associated within an industry.
“[T]he teachings of this disclosure could be adapted to operate using any business structure and/or business hierarchy known in the art. For example, FIG. 1C shows a business hierarchy comprising one or more dealer groups (commonly owned businesses) and one or more industry directive groups. One skilled in the art would recognize that the operational modes of a CAP website discussed herein could be adapted to provide context aware web services for this type of business hierarchy.” Muilenburg ¶ 265.
causing the third navigation flow to be displayed on the user device.
“At step 690, the configuration may be transmitted to the website. As discussed above, in some embodiments, method 600 may run in conjunction with the website to be configured. In such embodiments, the configuration may be applied to the user's session on the website.” Muilenburg ¶ 151.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Adika’s method of monitoring a user’s navigation flow on a first website to optimize the navigational structure of the first website, and others, with Muilenburg’s technique of doing the same among a plurality of websites that are affiliated with one another within the same industry. One would have been motivated to apply Muilenburg’s improvement technique to Adika’s method because this technique makes such websites more effective at marketing and/or sales of products. See Muilenburg ¶¶ 28–29 and 39–41.
Claim 3
Adika and Muilenburg teach the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the industry comprises at least one of:
online shopping, social media, banking, news, sports or surveys.
Adika teaches, if not at least suggests, that its method should be applied to an online shopping website. See Adika ¶ 89 (“the analysis module 222 may identify one or more keywords, for example, ‘New’, ‘Buy’, ‘Upgrade’, ‘Save’, ‘Download’, ‘Add to Cart’, and/or the like that are presented by the application 210.”).
Furthermore, Muilenburg explicitly provides for the same intended use: “the manufacturer website 240A, the franchise group websites 242A, and/or franchise websites 244A may provide marketing and sales information relating to the vehicles available from a particular manufacturer (e.g., manufacturer 110 of FIG. 1). As will be discussed below, the users 250 may access the context aware websites 230 via network 260, which may present marketing and/or sales information to the users 250.” Muilenburg ¶ 56.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites a general-purpose computing device configured to perform the same method as claim 2 as its normal operation. Therefore, the findings provided above for the rejection of claim 2, as well as the findings provided in the rejection of claim 13 (which include the adaptation of the method to an actual computer) are hereby incorporated by reference. In view of these findings, the Examiner concludes that claim 14 is obvious for the same reasons as given above in the rejection of claim 2.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 C.F.R. § 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
I. Claims 1, 4–13, and 15–20 are anticipated by claims 1–3, 5–10, 12, 16, 18, and 19 of U.S. 11,321,412
Claims 1, 4–13, and 15–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–3, 5–10, 12, 16, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,321,412. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons.
Regarding claims 1, 5–13, and 16–20 each and every recited element is also recited in the patented claims, according to the following tables:
This Application
1
4*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
US 11,321,412
1
1
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
This Application
13
15*
16
17
18
US 11,321,412
10
10
10
12
16
This Application
19
20
US 11,321,412
18
19
Keep in mind that for both the present application and the patent, each dependent claim incorporates all of the elements of its parent claim by reference. Additionally to the extent that the patented claims recite additional limitations not found in the pending claims, those additional elements fall within the open-ended “comprising” scope of each claim. See MPEP § 2111.03.
Regarding pending claims 4 and 15, the “parameters” mentioned in those claims fall within the scope of the “plurality of mappings” recited in patented claims 1 and 10, respectively.
II. Claims 2, 3, and 14 are obvious over claims 1 and 10 of US 11,321,412 in view of Muilenburg.
Claims 2, 3, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,321,412 in view of Muilenburg.
Claim 2
US 11,321,412 claim 1 recites the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly recite whether the preferred order defines a persistent navigation flow for the user across a plurality of websites associated within an industry.
It is respectfully submitted that the prior art does not need to teach that a plurality of websites are “associated within an industry,” because claim language describing the environment in which the invention operates is not considered a limitation on the claimed invention itself. Nazomi Communications, Inc., v. Nokia Corp., 739 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed Cir. 2014) (citing Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, Inc., 607 F.3d 784, 794-95 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and Advanced Software Design Corporation v. Fiserv, Inc., 641 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Nevertheless, even if claim 2 were interpreted to require an association between the plurality of websites as being within an industry, such a requirement was known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Specifically, Muilenburg teaches both this limitation and nearly all of the other limitations that claim 2 incorporates by reference to claim 1. For context, and to demonstrate the current strength of the conclusion of obviousness, Muilenburg’s disclosure of claim 2 will be discussed together with all of the elements of claim 1 incorporated into claim 2 that Muilenburg also teaches.
Muilenburg teaches:
A method comprising:
“FIG. 6 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of a method 600 for configuring a website using user profile information.” Muilenburg ¶ 138.
In a first step 610 of method 600, “one or more user profiles of users visiting one or more of the websites in the network of affiliated websites may be generated . . . as described above in conjunction with FIG. 4,” Muilenburg ¶ 139, and therefore, method 600 will be discussed together with the steps of the method of FIG. 4, which, as explained, are performed within step 610 of method 600.
receiving, by a first device and from a user device associated with a user, a first request to login to a first website,
During step 420, a user interacts with a respective “context aware website” from among a network of affiliated context aware websites. Muilenburg ¶ 103. These interactions “may comprise user identification information,” Muilenburg ¶ 104, which are received by the system when the user logs in to the website. See Muilenburg ¶¶ 159 and 141.
wherein the first website is associated with a first plurality of pages;
When visiting any of the foregoing websites, “the WebPages or other resources accessed by a particular user 250.” Muilenburg ¶ 63. “For example, in a system directed to automobile marketing, the detected activities may relate to whether a particular user 250 accessed information about particular vehicle models and/or vehicle technologies, such as Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV), hybrid drive systems, or the like.” Muilenburg ¶ 63.
causing a first navigation flow to be displayed on the user device,
“The computing devices 252 may comprise an application 254 capable of rendering content generated by one or more of the context aware websites 230.” Muilenburg ¶ 54.
causing the user device to monitor an interaction between the user device and a page indicated by the first navigation flow,
Also at step 420, in addition to the user actually interacting with and viewing the respective website, “each of the affiliated sites may be configured to monitor user interactions and/or gather user interaction data at the respective website.” Muilenburg ¶ 103.
generating, based on the interaction, a second navigation flow to be displayed on the user device,
“At step 490, the user profile generated at step 480 or obtained at step 470 may be updated to reflect the user behavior and/or profile information in the interaction data records received at step 440. As discussed above, this may include, but is not limited to: updating user preferences related to the product and/or service offered by the network of affiliated websites (e.g., preferred vehicle type, color, options, or the like); updating user preferences that are not directly related to the product and/or service offered by the network of affiliated websites (e.g., political, point-of-view, interest, demographics, etc.); updating information relating to the user's "ripeness" to make a purchase; and so on.” Muilenburg ¶ 108.
receiving a second request to login to a second website,
“At step 620, method 600 may attempt to access one of the websites in the network of affiliated websites (e.g., a website configured by the method 600). For example, as described above, this may comprise accessing any of the manufacturer website, franchise group website, franchise website, and/or CAP website.” Muilenburg ¶ 140.
wherein the second website is associated with a second plurality of pages;
When visiting any of the foregoing websites, “the WebPages or other resources accessed by a particular user 250.” Muilenburg ¶ 63. “For example, in a system directed to automobile marketing, the detected activities may relate to whether a particular user 250 accessed information about particular vehicle models and/or vehicle technologies, such as Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV), hybrid drive systems, or the like.” Muilenburg ¶ 63.
determining, based on the second navigation flow, a third navigation flow that causes the second plurality of pages to be displayed in the preferred order; and
“At step 650, the user profile may be accessed to determine one or more user preferences in the user profile. The user preferences accessed at step 650 may include, but are not limited to: user behavioral and/or usability preferences of the user; content preferences of the user; product preferences of the user; user locale; user ‘ripeness’ (e.g., readiness to make a purchase); and the like.” Muilenburg ¶ 143.
The assets of this second website are obtained, and then “[a]t step 670, a website configuration may be generated based on the assets obtained at step 660 and the user preferences accessed at step 650. As discussed above, generating the website configuration may comprise applying global branding and/or promotional content to the website; selecting content to display on the website; and/or selecting and/or adapting content based on the ‘ripeness’ of the user.” Muilenburg ¶ 148.
wherein the preferred order defines a persistent navigation flow for the user across a plurality of websites associated within an industry.
“[T]he teachings of this disclosure could be adapted to operate using any business structure and/or business hierarchy known in the art. For example, FIG. 1C shows a business hierarchy comprising one or more dealer groups (commonly owned businesses) and one or more industry directive groups. One skilled in the art would recognize that the operational modes of a CAP website discussed herein could be adapted to provide context aware web services for this type of business hierarchy.” Muilenburg ¶ 265.
causing the third navigation flow to be displayed on the user device.
“At step 690, the configuration may be transmitted to the website. As discussed above, in some embodiments, method 600 may run in conjunction with the website to be configured. In such embodiments, the configuration may be applied to the user's session on the website.” Muilenburg ¶ 151.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the patented method with Muilenburg’s technique of doing the same among a plurality of websites that are affiliated with one another within the same industry. One would have been motivated to apply Muilenburg’s improvement technique to the patented method because this technique makes such websites more effective at marketing and/or sales of products. See Muilenburg ¶¶ 28–29 and 39–41.
Claim 3
US 11,321,412 and Muilenburg teach the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the industry comprises at least one of:
online shopping, social media, banking, news, sports or surveys.
“[T]he manufacturer website 240A, the franchise group websites 242A, and/or franchise websites 244A may provide marketing and sales information relating to the vehicles available from a particular manufacturer (e.g., manufacturer 110 of FIG. 1). As will be discussed below, the users 250 may access the context aware websites 230 via network 260, which may present marketing and/or sales information to the users 250.” Muilenburg ¶ 56.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites a general-purpose computing device configured to perform the same method as claim 2 as its normal operation. Therefore, the findings provided above for the rejection of claim 2 are hereby incorporated by reference, but with patented claim 10 serving as the base reference. In view of these findings, the Examiner concludes that claim 14 is obvious for the same reasons as given above in the rejection of claim 2.
III. Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11, 13–17, 19, and 20 are anticipated by U.S. 11,886,526 B1.
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11, 13–17, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–3, 5–10, 12, 16, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,886,526.
Specifically, the claims of the present application are rejected over the following corresponding patented claims:
This Application
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
11
US 11,886,526
1
1
3
1
5
4
1
1
This Application
13
14
15
16
17
US 11,886,526
11
12
15
11
14
This Application
19
20
US 11,321,412
11
14
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons.
Claim 1
Due to differences in the placements of corresponding limitations between the pending and patented claims, the following table is provided below to show how the different elements correspond.
Pending Claim 1
Patented Claim 1
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a first device and from a user device associated with a user, a first request to login to a first website, wherein the first website is associated with a first plurality of pages;
receiving, by a first device and from a user device associated with a user, a first request to login to a first website . . . a first plurality of pages on the first website [is] to be displayed;
causing a first navigation flow to be displayed on the user device, wherein the first navigation flow indicates a display order for the first plurality of pages;
causing, based on verification of the one or more credentials, a first navigation flow to be displayed on the user device, wherein the first navigation flow comprises a first plurality of pages on the first website to be displayed in a first order;
causing the user device to monitor an interaction between the user device and a page indicated by the first navigation flow, wherein the interaction comprises a quantity of time the user spends with the page;
[the method includes considering, and therefore obtaining a record of] an interaction between the first computing device and a page indicated by the preferred navigation flow, wherein the interaction comprises a quantity of time a user spends with the page
generating, based on the interaction, a second navigation flow to be displayed on the user device, wherein the second navigation flow causes the first plurality of pages to be displayed in a preferred order;
generating, based on an indication of navigation preferences received from the user device, one or more navigation parameters, wherein the one or more navigation parameters indicate a preferred order of output of the first plurality of pages,
receiving a second request to login to a second website, wherein the second website is associated with a second plurality of pages;
receiving, from the user device, a second request to login to a second website . . . a second plurality of pages on the second website to be displayed in an updated preferred order;
determining, based on the second navigation flow, a third navigation flow that causes the second plurality of pages to be displayed in the preferred order; and
generating, based on the second request to login and based on the updated one or more navigation parameters and the persistent navigation flow for the user, a second navigation flow to be displayed on the user device, wherein the second navigation flow causes a second plurality of pages on the second website to be displayed in an updated preferred order
causing the third navigation flow to be displayed on the user device.
causing the second navigation flow to be displayed on the user device.
To the extent that the patented claims recite additional limitations not found in the pending claims, those additional elements fall within the open-ended “comprising” scope of each claim. See MPEP § 2111.03.
Claim 8
The only other difference lies with pending claim 8, which says that a first page of the first plurality of pages comprises a home page and a second page of the first plurality of pages comprises a bill pay view.
This is not a patentable difference, because “[w]here the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art.” MPEP § 2112.02(III.) (citing In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The same doctrine applies to method claims. See MPEP § 2111.05 (“The rationale behind the printed matter cases, in which, for example, written instructions are added to a known product, has been extended to method claims in which an instructional limitation is added to a method known in the art.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights