DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Application filed on February 22, 2024, which claims priority from provisional application filed on February 23, 2023.
Claims 1-23 are pending and are presented to examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated June 24, 2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the steps of the method of independent 13 must be shown (e.g., flowchart of the steps) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-23 are objected to because of the following informalities: For claims 2-7, 9-11, 14-19 and 21-23 please include a comma “, “, after claim dependency, e.g., “The system according to claim 1,”. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a mid-transition interaction system running on said at least one processor to enable a designer using said WBS, to build a transitional page [[;]], said mid-transition interaction system comprising:” in lines 3-4. Claim 3 recites “ wherein said designer parameters comprise at least one of: designer editing history, designer search history, designer websites [[and]] previously created, [[and]] shared links, products, videos and services.”. Claim 4 recites “wherein said input presenter enables toggling between [[the]] a display of said personalized input mechanism and a display of the regular input mechanism of said designer.”. Claim 5 recites “[[and]] wherein said parameters of end-users comprises usage behavior of end-users using said websites and transitional pages.”.
Claim 6 recites “[[and]] wherein said at least content comprises at least one of: a link, a product, a video, a service, other entities previously created by said designer, [[and]] assets and resources external and internal to said WBS.”. Claim 7 recites “[[and]] wherein said mid-transition interaction system further comprises:” in lines 1. Claim 8 recites “wherein said analyzer comprises: an AI/ML (artificial intelligence/machine learning) engine to at least provide said artificial intelligence and said training a one machine learning model; and a recommender to make recommendations to said input presenter according to [[the]] an output of said AI/ML engine.” Claim 11 recites “wherein said snippets are pre-defined by [[said]] a WBS vendor or by said designer and are displayed for selection by said designer or end-user to run when said personalized input mechanism is initializing.”. Claim 12 recites the limitation “a unit running on said at least one processor to enable a designer to build a transitional page [[;]], said unit comprising” in lines 3-4. Claim 12 recites the limitation “designer websites previously created and shared links, products, videos and services by said designer;” in line 10. Claim 13 recites “enabling a designer of said WBS to build a transitional page [[;]], said enabling [[a]] the designer of said WBS to build [[a]] the transitional page comprising:”. Claim 14 recites “wherein said determining [[a]] the personalized input mechanism dynamically changes the presentation of said personalized input mechanism according to changing context of at least one of: said transitional page and said communication.”. Claim 15 recites “[[and]] wherein said designer parameters comprise at least one of: designer editing history, designer search history, designer websites [[and]] previously created, [[and]] shared links, products, videos and services.”. Claim 16 recites “wherein said determining [[a]] the personalized input mechanism enables toggling between the display of said personalized input mechanism and display of the regular input mechanism of said designer.”. Claim 17 recites “[[and]] wherein said parameters of end-users comprises usage behavior of end-users using said websites and transitional pages.”. Claim 18 recites “[[and]] wherein said at least content comprises at least one of: a link, a product, a video, a service, other entities previously created by said designer, [[and]] assets and resources external and internal to said WBS.”. Claim 19 recites “[[and]] wherein said enabling [[a]] the designer to build [[a]] the transitional page further comprises:” in lines 1-2. Claim 19 recites “to at least analyzing the designer parameters and the parameters of end-users to provide recommendations for content for said transitional page and said communicator using at least one of:” in lines 3-5. Claim 20 recites “wherein said at least analyzing the designer parameters and the parameters of end-users comprises: at least providing said artificial intelligence and said training a machine learning model; and making recommendations for said determining [[a]] the personalized input mechanism according to [[the]] an output of said at least providing artificial intelligence and said training [[ae]] of the machine learning model.”. Claim 22 recites “[[and]] further comprising controlling said personalized input mechanism using predefined snippets of programming code defining at least one of: previously displayed links, products, videos, service or entities by said designer, an API use to change the UI for said designer or said at least one end-user, custom code for use by said designer, addition of mechanisms and frameworks external to said WBS for use, prompts and use of a generative AI (artificial intelligence system).”. Claim 23 recites “[[and]] further comprising: pre-defining said snippets; and displaying said snippets for selection by said designer or end-user to run when said personalized input mechanism is initializing.” Appropriate correction is required. Please amend the claim language as suggested in bold.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-12 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines and Claims 13-23 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1 (and similar for 13) as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations:
a) “” b) “”
c) “” – Mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III), this limitation can be reasonable performed by a human with the aid of pen and paper, wherein a person is able to present content to a designer according to parameters to build a webpage. d) ””
Claim 12 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations:
a) “”
b) “” – Mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III), this limitation can be reasonable performed by a human with the aid of pen and paper, wherein a person is able to create a webpage in paper based on recommendations.
c) “” – Mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III), this limitation can be reasonable performed by a human with the aid of pen and paper, wherein a person is able to present content to a designer according to parameters. d) “ That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, (i.e., “present”) can be performed in the human mind though observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1 and 12-13 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: “a system”, “at least one processor”, “a mid-transition interaction system”, “at least one database”, “an input presenter”, “a transitional page creator”, “a communicator” and ”an input presenter”. The additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There are additional elements in the claim such as: a) “a mid-transition interaction system running on said at least one processor to enable a designer using said WBS, to build a transitional page; said mid-transition interaction system comprising:”. However as drafted, this element is considered mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Examiner notes: No technical steps have been limited indicating how the transitional page is built, as drafted is a mere interaction of data to apply the abstract idea. b) ”a communicator enabling communication between said designer and at least one end-user.”. However as drafted, this element is considered mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Examiner notes: No technical steps have been limited indicating how the communication is performed between the designer and end-user, as drafted is a mere interaction of data to apply the abstract idea. c) “at least one database storing designer parameters and parameters of end-users accessing websites and transitional pages created by said WBS;”. However as drafted, this element is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity of storing and mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). d) ”a unit running on said at least one processor to enable a designer to build a transitional page;”. However as drafted, this element is considered mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Examiner notes: No technical steps have been limited indicating how the processor enables the designer to build the transitional page, as drafted is a mere interaction of data to apply the abstract idea. e) “wherein said input presenter dynamically changes the presentation of said personalized input mechanism according to changing context of said transitional page.”. However as drafted, this element is considered mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Examiner notes: No technical steps have been limited indicating how the presenter dynamically changes the presentation, as drafted is a mere interaction of data to apply the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1 and 12-13 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “a system”, “at least one processor”, “a mid-transition interaction system”, “at least one database”, “an input presenter”, “a transitional page creator”, “a communicator” and ”an input presenter” are generic computer components used as tools to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, after further evaluation the claim as a whole doesn’t improve any function of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. The additional element “at least one database storing designer parameters and parameters of end-users accessing websites and transitional pages created by said WBS;” is also considered a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d),II,iv “storing information”.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1 and 12-13 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 2 (and claim 14), it recites “wherein said input presenter dynamically changes the presentation of said personalized input mechanism according to changing context of at least one of: said transitional page and said communication.” However as drafted, this element is considered mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Examiner notes: No technical steps have been limited indicating how the presenter dynamically changes the presentation. Moreover, claim 2 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 2 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is 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, Claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 3 (and claim 15), it recites “wherein said designer parameters comprise at least one of: designer editing history, designer search history, designer websites and previously created and shared links, products, videos and services.” However as drafted, this element is considered mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, claim 3 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is 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, Claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 4 (and claim 16), it recites “wherein said input presenter enables toggling between the display of said personalized input mechanism and display of the regular input mechanism of said designer.” However as drafted, this element is considered mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, claim 4 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 4 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is 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, Claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 5 (and claim 17), it recites “wherein said parameters of end-users comprises usage behavior of end-users using said websites and transitional pages.” However as drafted, this element is considered mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, claim 5 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 5 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is 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, Claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 6 (and claim 18), it recites “wherein said at least content comprises at least one of: a link, a product, a video, a service, other entities previously created by said designer and assets and resources external and internal to said WBS.” However as drafted, this element is considered mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, claim 6 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 6 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is 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, Claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. With regards to claim 7 (and similar for claim 19), it recites “end-user of said transitional page for end-user searching purposes.” 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 and/or using pen and paper. For example, a person can analyze parameter to recommend content, determining campaigns and content for displaying a webpage. Moreover, claim 7 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is 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, Claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 8 (and claim 20), it recites “wherein said analyzer comprises: an AI/ML (artificial intelligence/machine learning) engine to at least provide said artificial intelligence and said training a one machine learning model; and a recommender to make recommendations to said input presenter according to the output of said AI/ML engine.” However as drafted, this element is considered mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). In addition, the use of AI or Machine learning algorithms without mentioning any technical steps is also considered a field of use and technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Moreover, claim 8 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is 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, Claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 9 (and claim 21), it recites “wherein said personalized input mechanism is a keyboard” However as drafted, this element is considered mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, claim 9 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is 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, Claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 10 (and claim 22), it recites “wherein said personalized input mechanism is controlled by predefined snippets of programming code defining at least one of: previously displayed links, products, videos, service or entities by said designer, an API use to change the UI for said designer or said at least one end-user, custom code for use by said designer, addition of mechanisms and frameworks external to said WBS for use, prompts and use of a generative AI (artificial intelligence system).” However as drafted, this element is considered mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, claim 10 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is 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, Claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 11 (and claim 23), it recites “wherein said snippets are pre-defined by said WBS vendor or by said designer and are displayed for selection by said designer or end-user to run when said personalized input mechanism is initializing.” However as drafted, this element is considered mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, claim 11 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 11 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is 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, Claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, Claims 1-23 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 13-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blumenfeld et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0151226 – hereinafter Blumenfeld – IDS 06/24/2024).
With respect to claim 1, Blumenfeld teaches a website building system (WBS) (See abstract, figures 1, 3 and paragraphs [0019], [0106], “A website building system (WBS) includes a database of website components and definitions and instances of website building system configurable applications (WCAs), where the WCAs are single packaged entities which can also be accessed as a sets of customizable elements”), said system comprising: at least one processor (see paragraph [0285], “This apparatus may be specially constructed for the desired purposes, or it may comprise a computing device or system typically having at least one processor and at least one memory”) and a mid-transition interaction system running on said at least one processor to enable a designer using said WBS, to build a transitional page (See figures 3-4 and paragraph [0109], “WCA module 300 may interface with multiple parts of website building system 5 as well as directly with users of various types. Reference is now made to FIG. 4 which illustrates the elements of WCA module 300. WCA module 300 may comprise a WCA manager 310, a WCA Appstore manager 315, a WCA site viewer 320, a WCA repository 325, a WCA deployment/usage environment (in-site editor) 330, a WCA SGS (site generation system) interface 340, a WCA CMS coordinator 350, a WCA building environment (app builder) 360 and a WCA handler 370. WCA app builder 360 may further comprise a customization panel creator 361, a dialog editor 362 and a WCA analyzer 363.”. See paragraphs [0114], [0126], “a WCA developer 64 may also develop web sites using his own WCAs. The website building system may also allow end-users 63 to make some edits to the site they are visiting, possibly using or modifying a WCA instance in the site.”. Examiner notes: WCA module 300 is interpreted as mid-transition system, which integrates building steps into WBS 5 and facilitates interaction with vendor 61, designer 62, site viewer 63 and WCA developer 64, in here the WCA developer is capable to developer web sites (i.e., transitional page); said mid-transition interaction system comprising: at least one database storing designer parameters and parameters of end-users accessing websites and transitional pages created by said WBS (See at least figures 4-5 (and related text), WCA repository 325 and associated databases 50, 325 interacting with WBS 5) and an input presenter to determine a personalized input mechanism to present at least content to said designer according to least said designer parameters (See figures 3-4 and paragraphs [0100]-[0101], [0110], [0115], [0159], [0162], [0185]-[0186], “It will also be appreciated that typically updates to a WCA may come from a WCA developer and modifications from a WCA user such as site designer 62. These changes may also be interchangeable since (for example) site designer 62 may create a variant version of an existing WCA and he may customize WCAs per each instance on a site. When this occurs, site designer 62 may become a developer of the WCA since he now has a changed version of the original WCA which he can publish for his users”. “It will be appreciated that WCA SGS interface 340 may be dynamically integrate a WCA into a page whenever the page is loaded, e.g., when the page is edited or viewed (including the changed master version and any local changes and parameters). Thus, the page will always reflect the latest update of the referenced “master version” of the WCA. This dynamic integration may apply any of the rules or policies described below to this dynamic integration process (such as “limit updates from master copy to code changes only but not layout”).”. See paragraphs [0154], [0238], “ML/AI module 379 may train both modules (3794, 3795) based on the data extracted by CMS extractor/trainer 3792 from CMS 50 and WCA repository 325 (including site and user parameters, as well as user collected information such as editing history and business intelligence information).”. Examiner notes: WCA developer share changes with designer, therefore utilizing designer parameters stored in repository)) and said parameters of end-users (see paragraph [00154], user parameters that interact between WCA 300 and WBS 5) for use with at least one of: a transitional page creator to enable said designer to build said transitional page (see figure 4 (and related text), WCA app builder 360 and paragraph [0157], “will be appreciated that WCAs may be created using WCA app builder 360 and further edited using customization panel creator 361 and dialog editor 362. Dialog editor 362 may be typically focused on editing the WCAs definition themselves, whereas customization panel creator 361 is typically focused on editing the various WCA-specific customization panels which are associated with the WCA, and which may be displayed during editing (or in some cases during run-time when some editing capability is available during run-time) to help in configuring the specific WCA instance. Such customization panels may be displayed in conjunction with the WCA (e.g. on its boundary), or may be embedded into the WBS main editing UI. In alternative embodiments, they may also be edited using WCA in-site editor 330 and the regular WBS editor 30 which may be extended by additional capabilities to support WCA editing.”. Examiner notes: providing the page) and a communicator enabling communication between said designer and at least one end-user (see figure 3, network communication channel for user 61-64). With respect to claim 2, Blumenfeld teaches wherein said input presenter dynamically changes the presentation of said personalized input mechanism according to changing context of at least one of: said transitional page and said communication (See paragraph [00186], “WCA handler 370 may also implement silent updates, which WCA handler 370 may distribute to client sites (which use the WCA) without notice. Alternatively, WCA handler 370 may distribute updates together with additional information that will be presented to the user on receipt of the updates. Such additional information may include interactive elements (displayed before, during, or after installation), such as a user confirmation form, feedback requests, training, and documentation for the update to be presented. The additional information may also include code or condition definitions for the installation of the update. This also applies to the by-reference architecture (which doesn't have an explicit update distribution operation) as the page integration process may detect that the master copy of the WCA has been changed during editing, and present the additional information noted above to the site designer. The same process may also be employed in the live site (i.e., during run-time) to present the changed version to the end users, possibly including additional information (e.g. “Press here to learn about the new ‘city tour’ display” button).”. Examiner notes: dynamically changing context). With respect to claim 3, Blumenfeld teaches wherein said designer parameters comprise at least one of: (see figures 3-4 and paragraphs [0100]-[0101], [0110], [0115], [0159], [0162], [0186], “It will also be appreciated that typically updates to a WCA may come from a WCA developer and modifications from a WCA user such as site designer 62. These changes may also be interchangeable since (for example) site designer 62 may create a variant version of an existing WCA and he may customize WCAs per each instance on a site. When this occurs, site designer 62 may become a developer of the WCA since he now has a changed version of the original WCA which he can publish for his users”. See paragraphs [0154], [0238], “ML/AI module 379 may train both modules (3794, 3795) based on the data extracted by CMS extractor/trainer 3792 from CMS 50 and WCA repository 325 (including site and user parameters, as well as user collected information such as editing history and business intelligence information).”. Examiner notes: interchangeable changes between versions. With respect to claim 4, Blumenfeld teaches wherein said input presenter enables toggling between the display of said personalized input mechanism and display of the regular input mechanism of said designer (see figures 3-4 and paragraphs [0100]-[0101], [0110], [0115], [0159], [0162], [0186], “It will also be appreciated that typically updates to a WCA may come from a WCA developer and modifications from a WCA user such as site designer 62. These changes may also be interchangeable since (for example) site designer 62 may create a variant version of an existing WCA and he may customize WCAs per each instance on a site. When this occurs, site designer 62 may become a developer of the WCA since he now has a changed version of the original WCA which he can publish for his users”. See paragraphs [0154], [0238], “ML/AI module 379 may train both modules (3794, 3795) based on the data extracted by CMS extractor/trainer 3792 from CMS 50 and WCA repository 325 (including site and user parameters, as well as user collected information such as editing history and business intelligence information).”. Examiner notes: interchangeable changes back and forth, interpreted as toggling)).
With respect to claim 5, Blumenfeld teaches wherein said parameters of end-users comprises usage behavior of end-users using said websites and transitional pages (See paragraph [0180], “It will be appreciated that multiple such changes to the editing environment (resulting for example from the use of multiple WCAs, each having its own set of editor UI changes) may conflict with each other. Change resolver 3735 may resolve such conflicting changes when the changes are introduced in real-time or during editing. Change resolver 3735 may take into account (for example) the user's profile, editing history, user editing behavior, current editing focus, site/page/WCA related parameters, collected site BI, etc. in order to resolve the conflict. Such resolution may be fully automatic, semi-automatic or manual (involving WCA developer 64).”). With respect to claim 6, Blumenfeld teaches wherein said at least content comprises at least one of: (See paragraph [0258], “In a function related to ghosting, system 200 may provide a user interface allowing the WCA user to re-establish components deleted from a WCA. Thus, the user may select WCA components deleted in the current WCA instance, and return them into the WCA based on their “factory settings” or on the setting and content used by the components when deleted.”). With respect to claim 9, Blumenfeld teaches wherein said personalized input mechanism is a keyboard (See figure 3, user with keyboard). With respect to claims 13-18 and 21, the claims are directed to a method that corresponds to the system recited in claims 1-6 and 9, respectively (see the rejection of claims 1-6 and 9 above).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumenfeld et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0151226 – hereinafter Blumenfeld – IDS 06/24/2024) in view of Aviyam et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0200943 – hereinafter Aviyam).
With respect to claim 12, Blumenfeld teaches a system (See figures 3-4), the system comprising: at least one processor (see paragraph [0285], “This apparatus may be specially constructed for the desired purposes, or it may comprise a computing device or system typically having at least one processor and at least one memory”) and a unit running on said at least one processor to enable a designer to build a transitional page (See figures 3-4 and paragraph [0109], “WCA module 300 may interface with multiple parts of website building system 5 as well as directly with users of various types. Reference is now made to FIG. 4 which illustrates the elements of WCA module 300. WCA module 300 may comprise a WCA manager 310, a WCA Appstore manager 315, a WCA site viewer 320, a WCA repository 325, a WCA deployment/usage environment (in-site editor) 330, a WCA SGS (site generation system) interface 340, a WCA CMS coordinator 350, a WCA building environment (app builder) 360 and a WCA handler 370. WCA app builder 360 may further comprise a customization panel creator 361, a dialog editor 362 and a WCA analyzer 363.”. See paragraphs [0114], [0126], “a WCA developer 64 may also develop web sites using his own WCAs. The website building system may also allow end-users 63 to make some edits to the site they are visiting, possibly using or modifying a WCA instance in the site.”. Examiner notes: WCA module 300 is interpreted as mid-transition system, which integrates building steps into WBS 5 and facilitates interaction with vendor 61, designer 62, site viewer 63 and WCA developer 64, in here the WCA developer is capable to developer web sites (i.e., transitional page); said unit comprising: an input presenter to determine and present a personalized input mechanism for said designer when using said transitional page creator according to at least one of: previously created and shared links, products, videos and services by said designer; (See figures 3-4 and paragraphs [0100]-[0101], [0110], [0115], [0159], [0162], [0185]-[0186], “It will also be appreciated that typically updates to a WCA may come from a WCA developer and modifications from a WCA user such as site designer 62. These changes may also be interchangeable since (for example) site designer 62 may create a variant version of an existing WCA and he may customize WCAs per each instance on a site. When this occurs, site designer 62 may become a developer of the WCA since he now has a changed version of the original WCA which he can publish for his users”. “It will be appreciated that WCA SGS interface 340 may be dynamically integrate a WCA into a page whenever the page is loaded, e.g., when the page is edited or viewed (including the changed master version and any local changes and parameters). Thus, the page will always reflect the latest update of the referenced “master version” of the WCA. This dynamic integration may apply any of the rules or policies described below to this dynamic integration process (such as “limit updates from master copy to code changes only but not layout”).”. See paragraphs [0154], [0238], “ML/AI module 379 may train both modules (3794, 3795) based on the data extracted by CMS extractor/trainer 3792 from CMS 50 and WCA repository 325 (including site and user parameters, as well as user collected information such as editing history and business intelligence information).”. See paragraph [0258], “In a function related to ghosting, system 200 may provide a user interface allowing the WCA user to re-establish components deleted from a WCA. Thus, the user may select WCA components deleted in the current WCA instance, and return them into the WCA based on their “factory settings” or on the setting and content used by the components when deleted.”) and wherein said input presenter dynamically changes the presentation of said personalized input mechanism according to changing context of said transitional page (See paragraph [00186], “WCA handler 370 may also implement silent updates, which WCA handler 370 may distribute to client sites (which use the WCA) without notice. Alternatively, WCA handler 370 may distribute updates together with additional information that will be presented to the user on receipt of the updates. Such additional information may include interactive elements (displayed before, during, or after installation), such as a user confirmation form, feedback requests, training, and documentation for the update to be presented. The additional information may also include code or condition definitions for the installation of the update. This also applies to the by-reference architecture (which doesn't have an explicit update distribution operation) as the page integration process may detect that the master copy of the WCA has been changed during editing, and present the additional information noted above to the site designer. The same process may also be employed in the live site (i.e., during run-time) to present the changed version to the end users, possibly including additional information (e.g. “Press here to learn about the new ‘city tour’ display” button).”. Examiner notes: dynamically changing context). Blumenfeld is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Aviyam teaches: a transitional page creator to enable said designer to create said transitional page comprising at least one feature according to recommendations and designer added links (See paragraphs [0214]-[0216], [0296], [0299], “Website analyzer 153 may aid in analyzing the website to determine the components of a website. The website analyzer 153 may run regularly to analyze the websites 141 and to determine potential improvements. Website analyzer 153 may analyze the websites 141 to determine the design rules 131, building tools 132, building elements 133, and/or templates 134 used to build the websites 141. As discussed further below, website analyzer 153 may generate analytics regarding the performance of websites 141 using some or all of these website inputs, or machine learning models, to determine which website inputs are most effective for particular verticals of websites, particular categories of websites, etc”). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Blumenfeld by enable a designer to create said transitional page as suggested by Aviyam, as Aviyam would improve integration of promotional content generation systems and optimizing the content used for promotional content generation (see paragraph [0005]).
Claims 7-8, 12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumenfeld et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0151226 – hereinafter Blumenfeld – IDS 06/24/2024) in view of Aviyam et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0200943 – hereinafter Aviyam) and further in view of Kaufman et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0282218 – hereinafter Kaufman IDS 06/242024). With respect to claim 7, Blumenfeld is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Aviyam teaches wherein said mid-transition interaction system further comprises: an analyzer to at least analyze designer parameters and parameters of end-users to provide recommendations for content for said transitional page and said communicator using at least one of: heuristics, statistical analysis, artificial intelligence and training a machine learning model or a combination thereof to determine said recommendations (See paragraphs [0214]-[0216], [0296], [0299], “Website analyzer 153 may aid in analyzing the website to determine the components of a website. The website analyzer 153 may run regularly to analyze the websites 141 and to determine potential improvements. Website analyzer 153 may analyze the websites 141 to determine the design rules 131, building tools 132, building elements 133, and/or templates 134 used to build the websites 141. As discussed further below, website analyzer 153 may generate analytics regarding the performance of websites 141 using some or all of these website inputs, or machine learning models, to determine which website inputs are most effective for particular verticals of websites, particular categories of websites, etc”). a campaign/coupon handler to determine campaigns and coupons for display on said transitional page according to said analyzer and systems external to said WBS (see paragraphs [0003], [0144], [0270], “Further disclosed embodiments relate to management and optimization of advertising campaigns. Websites may be associated with businesses of various forms that wish to conduct advertising, both online and through other media. According to the techniques described below, advertising campaigns can be managed through interaction between a website building system and a separate advertising platform. Through native website building system data, and native advertising platform data, the performance and content of advertising campaigns can be optimized. This optimization can occur both during the initial setup and creation of an advertising campaign, and on an ongoing basis as a campaign is deployed. The performance of the campaign can be tracked over time, compared to the performance of other similar campaigns. Further, the performance of the campaign can be compared on one or more different advertising platforms to compare”). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Blumenfeld’s teaching, which relate to website building systems with Aviyam’s teachings, as Aviyam would improve integration of promotional content generation systems and optimizing the content used for promotional content generation (see paragraph [0005]). Blumenfeld in view of Aviyam is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Kaufman teaches a search box handler to determine what content can be presented to said at least one end-user of said transitional page for end-user searching purposes (See paragraphs [0259]-[0260], “Optionally, a search box creator 197 may enable the designer to specify that a given LC will display a subset of the associated collection items, selected according to given search criteria (e.g., a given query applied to the fields, or other filters). The designer may further specify that such search box would be shown to the end-user when viewing the LC, thereby allowing the end-user to selectively filter or search the displayed content. An example for such search box is shown in FIG. 26.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Blumenfeld and Aviyam, by using a search box handler to determine what content can be presented to said at least one end-user of said transitional page for end-user searching purposes as suggested by Kaufman, as Kaufman allow end-users to selectively filter or search the displayed content. With respect to claims 19-20, the claims are directed to a method that corresponds to the system recited in claims 7-8, respectively (see the rejection of claims 7-8 above).
Claims 10-11 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumenfeld et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0151226 – hereinafter Blumenfeld – IDS 06/24/2024) in view of Nagar et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0028531– hereinafter Nagar). With respect to claim 10, Blumenfeld is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Nagar teaches wherein said personalized input mechanism is controlled by predefined snippets of programming code defining at least one of: (See paragraphs [0007], [0021, “Website building systems, as disclosed herein, are used to allow people with limited software development experience and/or limited resources to develop and host a customized website. Conventional website development systems, on the other hand, offer a template frontend UI with no or limited backend control through calls to external services or embedded code snippets calling server-side code, thus limiting the system to webpages with no or minimal options for data manipulation or other custom functionality. Other systems expect to be fully involved in setting up client-server interactions in order to access full backend control.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Blumenfeld’s teaching, which relate to website building systems with Nagar’s teachings, as Nagar would manage backend functionality, to provide the freedom to have more customization of the website (see paragraph [0013]). With respect to claim 11, Blumenfeld is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Nagar teaches wherein said snippets are pre-defined by said WBS vendor or by said designer and are displayed for selection by said designer or end-user to run when said personalized input mechanism is initializing (See paragraphs [0007], [0021, “Website building systems, as disclosed herein, are used to allow people with limited software development experience and/or limited resources to develop and host a customized website. Conventional website development systems, on the other hand, offer a template frontend UI with no or limited backend control through calls to external services or embedded code snippets calling server-side code, thus limiting the system to webpages with no or minimal options for data manipulation or other custom functionality. Other systems expect to be fully involved in setting up client-server interactions in order to access full backend control.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Blumenfeld’s teaching, which relate to website building systems with Nagar’s teachings, as Nagar would manage backend functionality, to provide the freedom to have more customization of the website (see paragraph [0013]).
With respect to claims 22-23, the claims are directed to a method that corresponds to the system recited in claims 10-11, respectively (see the rejection of claims 10-11 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sherwin et al. (US Pat. No. 11,087,389) discloses a messaging system for a website building system hosting a website. The system also includes at least one database storing website parameters, pre-defined rules concerning card definitions, pre-defined widget card parameters and a product classification taxonomy and at least one card product system to receive a trigger from the website, associated with an action related to a product. The system generates an actionable widget card associated with the product based on the action, the website parameters, the pre-defined rules, the pre-defined widget card parameters and the product classification taxonomy where the widget card implements e-commerce related operations for the product between a publisher of the website with an end user of the website. (see abstract).
Ben-Aharon et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0300361) discloses a system and method for a visual design system includes a memory, a processor, a page analyzer to extract business information of at least one data structure of at least one page of a visual application having an existing layout, to perform a semantic analysis of the extracted business information and to use the extracted business information to produce a business information layout and an associated business information signature; a database to store at least one layout and at least one associated layout signature where the layout signature represents a business information composition of the at least one layout, a signature comparer to perform a comparison of the associated business information signature of the at least one data structure with the associated layout signature of the at least one layout stored in said layout database and where the processor and the memory embody the page analyzer and the signature comparer. (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1200. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 5712726799. 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.
/ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192