DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Remarks and Claim Amendments filed on June 24, 2026.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-20 and 22-23 have been amended. Claims 9 and 21 have been canceled.
Claims 1-8, 10-20 and 22-23 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 .
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.
Response to Amendments
The objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) is maintained. Applicant's remarks that Figures 3-4 depict the structural components underlying method claim 13 are acknowledged; however, the specific method steps of independent claim 13 (i.e., the storing, determining, enabling and dynamically-changing steps) are not themselves illustrated. A flowchart illustrating the claimed steps, or cancellation of the corresponding features, is required. No new matter should be entered.
The objection of claims 1, 3-8, 11-14, 16-20 and 22-23 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more is withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment. The amended independent claims recite that the personalized input mechanism is a keyboard controlled by predefined snippets of programming code to modify a user interface of the keyboard in response to conversational content within the communication. This limitation is directed to a specific improvement in user-interface/input-mechanism technology — the programmatic reconfiguration of the keyboard's interface in response to the conversational content of the communication — rather than to a result achieved by generic means. Considered as a whole, the additional elements integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application, such that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection: Applicant argues that Blumenfeld fails to teach the amended keyboard limitation and the dynamic change of the input mechanism according to conversational content. This argument is persuasive with respect to Blumenfeld alone, and the 102 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been applied. The amended keyboard limitation is taught by Margot, which discloses an intelligent keyboard that is controlled by API calls and generative-AI-generated content to modify the content presented on the keyboard in response to the conversational context and content of the communication (Margot [0022], [0030], [0031], [0051], [0056]).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections: Applicant argues that neither Blumenfeld's WCA management system nor Aviyam's website analytics teaches using predefined code snippets to modify a keyboard UI in response to conversational content, and that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated only to build better websites, not a context-aware input device. This argument does not address Margot, newly applied herein. Margot is directed to precisely such a context-aware keyboard, and expressly teaches modifying the content presented at the keyboard in response to the conversational context (Margot [0051], [0056]) and delivering "hyper specific content, recommendations, opportunities or offers relevant to the user" (Margot [0038]). Blumenfeld and Margot are analogous art directed to presenting context-relevant content to a user through a user interface; the motivation to combine them is the predictable improvement of the designer's efficiency in sharing relevant content during communication with an end-user, and is supported by Margot's own stated advantages. Further, Applicant's argument that the references do not teach "predefined snippets of programming code" is not commensurate with the claim scope as defined by Applicant's own specification, which states that such snippets include "an API use to change the UI" and "prompts and use of a generative AI" (Spec. [0046]) - both of which Margot discloses.
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 1-8, 10-11, 13-20 and 22-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (and similar for claim 13) recites “an input presenter to determine a personalized input mechanism to present at least content to said designer according to at least said designer parameters and said parameters of end-users for use with at least one of:” in lines 9-11. For claims 2-7, 10-11, 14-19 and 22-23 please include a comma “, “, after claim dependency, e.g., “The system according to claim 1, wherein”. Examiner notes: claims 8 and 20 already include the comma. 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 5 recites “(Currently Amended) The system according…”. Please remove “Original)”. Claim 8 recites “an AI/ML (artificial intelligence/machine learning) engine to at least provide said artificial intelligence and said training machine learning model;” in lines 3-5. Claim 15 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 19 recites “wherein said enabling [[a]] the designer to build [[a]] the transitional page further comprises:” in lines 1-2. Appropriate correction is required. Please amend the claim language as suggested in bold.
Dependent claims 8 and 20 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claim and, therefore, are objected for the same reasons as the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 13-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 (similar for claim 20) recites “an AI/ML (artificial intelligence/machine learning) engine to at least provide said artificial intelligence and said training a one machine learning model;” in lines 3-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 depends on claim 7 which uses “at least one of”. Because those are alternatives that need not all be present, the “said” references are indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "wherein said input presenter dynamically changes the presentation of said personalized input mechanism according to changing context of said communication;" in lines 15-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "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. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims 14-18 and 22-23 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claim and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons as the base claim.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-11, 13-18 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 – previously presented) in view of Margot et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0244847, hereinafter Margot).
With respect to claim 1 (Currently Amended), Blumenfeld teaches a website building system (WBS), said system comprising: at least one processor (Blumenfeld [0106]: "a system 200 for handling website building system (WBS) configurable applications in a website building system"; [0285]: "a computing device or system typically having at least one processor and at least one memory". Blumenfeld's system 200 is a WBS executing on at least one processor.) 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 (Blumenfeld [0109]: "WCA module 300 may interface with multiple parts of website building system 5 as well as directly with users of various types", including a "WCA building environment (app builder) 360"; [0114]: "a WCA developer 64 may also develop web sites using his own WCAs". The WCA module, integrated into the WBS and enabling a designer to build pages, reads on the recited mid-transition interaction system.)
at least one database storing designer parameters and parameters of end-users accessing websites and transitional pages created by said WBS (Blumenfeld [0154]: the ML/AI module trains "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)". Editing history is stored designer parameters, and site/user parameters and business intelligence are stored end-user parameters.) and
a transitional page creator to enable said designer to build said transitional page (Blumenfeld [0109]: the WCA module comprises a "WCA building environment (app builder) 360"; [0114]: "a WCA developer 64 may also develop web sites using his own WCAs". The WCA app builder, by which the designer builds the web page, is the recited transitional page creator.) Blumenfeld does not expressly disclose the input presenter, the personalized input mechanism, or its operation, however, in an analogous art, Margot teaches: an input presenter to determine a personalized input mechanism to present at least content to said designer according to least said designer parameters and said parameters of end-users for use with at least one of: (Margot [0022]: the app "controls keyboard extension 11 which is the actual intelligent keyboard on the user's device"; [0043] and [0048]: the system builds a user profile and serves ranked "live keyboard content" to the user according to that user's parameters; [0049]: "Profile data 105 is information about the user or user of the intelligent keyboard as well as data collected about the people to whom users are speaking". Margot's intelligent keyboard is the recited personalized input mechanism, which an input presenter determines and presents to the designer, presenting content selected according to both the designer's parameters and the parameters of the end-users with whom the designer communicates. In the combination, this personalized input mechanism presents content for use with the transitional page creator taught by Blumenfeld above, thereby satisfying the recited "at least one of".)
a communicator enabling communication between said designer and at least one end-user (Margot [0043]: the intelligent keyboard operates within the user's messaging and email applications; [0061]: "Third party user devices 211 also connect through network 209. These are other user devices that receive communications from the user of the intelligent keyboard application". Margot's keyboard enables the user (designer) to communicate with third-party end-users, and is the recited communicator.)
wherein said input presenter dynamically changes the presentation of said personalized input mechanism according to changing context of said communication (Margot [0056]: "the intelligent keyboard is monitoring the user's context, i.e. the location the keyboard is used, such as iMessage/SMS/text, email, dating apps", and that information "is passed to the system to optimize the content presented to the present user"; [0051]: the keyboard "is generating keyboard content appropriate for the context". Margot's intelligent keyboard, i.e., the personalized input mechanism, dynamically changes the content it presents according to the changing context of the communication in which it is deployed.)
wherein said personalized input mechanism is a keyboard controlled by predefined snippets of programming code to modify a user interface of the keyboard in response to conversational content within said communication (Margot [0022]: the app "controls keyboard extension 11 which is the actual intelligent keyboard on the user's device"; [0031]: "if 'How are you?' is sent to the Artificial Intelligence Models API, it might respond 'I am doing well, thank you'"; [0030]: the system "uses this natural language capability to generate conversation content and responses that are presented in the intelligent keyboard"; [0037]: the keyboard "use[s] the enhanced context ... to add events to a user's preferred calendar application without leaving the intelligent keyboard". Margot's keyboard is controlled by API calls to the Artificial Intelligence Models and by generative-AI-generated content that modify the content presented on the keyboard user interface in response to the conversational content of the message. Consistent with Applicant's own specification, which defines "predefined snippets of programming code" to include "an API use to change the UI" and "prompts and use of a generative AI" (Spec. [0046]), Margot's API-driven and generative-AI-driven control of the keyboard reads on the recited predefined snippets of programming code.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the personalized input mechanism of Blumenfeld's input presenter as the context-aware intelligent keyboard of Margot, such that the input mechanism is a keyboard controlled by code and API calls to modify its user interface in response to the conversational content of the communication. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Margot teaches that surfacing context-appropriate content directly at the keyboard streamlines the user's messaging workflow (Margot [0025]-[0026]) and enables presentation of "hyper specific content, recommendations, opportunities or offers relevant to the user" (Margot [0038]); combining this with Blumenfeld's designer-facing content presentation would predictably improve the designer's efficiency in sharing relevant content while communicating with an end-user, using known elements according to their established functions to yield a predictable result.
With respect to claim 2 (Original), Blumenfeld is silent to disclose, however, in an analogous art, Margot 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 (Margot [0056]: "the intelligent keyboard is monitoring the user's context, i.e. the location the keyboard is used, such as iMessage/SMS/text, email, dating apps, and others", and that "information is passed to the system to optimize the content presented to the present user"; [0051]: the initial screen shows the keyboard "generating keyboard content appropriate for the context, i.e. the application, text, email, etc.". Margot's intelligent keyboard (the personalized input mechanism) does not present a fixed set of content; instead, the system continuously monitors the context of the communication in which the keyboard is being used and, in response to that changing context, changes the content presented on the keyboard. This satisfies the recited requirement that the presentation of the personalized input mechanism be dynamically changed according to the changing context of the communication, which is one of the recited "at least one of" alternatives.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the intelligent keyboard of Margot within the website building system of Blumenfeld such that the presentation of the personalized input mechanism dynamically changes according to the changing context of the communication, for the same reasons and with the same predictable improvement in the designer's efficiency set forth for claim 1 above. With respect to claim 3 (Currently Amended), Blumenfeld teaches 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 (Blumenfeld [0154]: the data used by the system includes "user collected information such as editing history and business intelligence information". Blumenfeld stores, as a parameter of the site designer, the designer's editing history. Because the claim requires only "at least one of" the recited categories of designer parameters, Blumenfeld's storage of the designer's editing history satisfies the limitation. With respect to claim 4 (Currently Amended), Blumenfeld is silent to disclose, however, in an analogous art, Margot teaches wherein said input presenter enables toggling between a display of said personalized input mechanism and a display of the regular input mechanism of said designer (Margot [0046]: "Keyboard toggle 41 allows the user to toggle between keyboard types in iOS, including the intelligent keyboard, standard keyboard and other enabled keyboards". Margot's keyboard extension provides a toggle control by which the user switches the displayed keyboard between the intelligent keyboard (the personalized input mechanism) and the standard keyboard (the regular input mechanism), which is the toggling recited by the claim.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the toggle of Margot in the combination of claim 1 so that the designer may switch the display between the personalized input mechanism and the regular keyboard, because Margot teaches this toggle as an ordinary control of the intelligent keyboard and its inclusion would predictably allow the designer to select the appropriate input mechanism for the task at hand.
With respect to claim 5 (Currently Amended), Blumenfeld teaches wherein said parameters of end-users comprises usage behavior of end-users using said websites and transitional pages (Blumenfeld [0180]: the system takes into account "site/page/WCA related parameters, collected site BI"; [0154]: "business intelligence information". The collected site business intelligence (BI) maintained by Blumenfeld is data reflecting how end-users use and interact with the websites and pages built by the system, i.e., end-user usage behavior.)
With respect to claim 6 (Currently Amended), Blumenfeld is silent to disclose, however, in an analogous art, Margot teaches 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, assets and resources external and internal to said WBS (Margot [0043]: "content created by the user with particular conversational words, responses and phrases can be stored as 'favorites' or 'bookmarks' in their user profile"; [0038]: third-party integrations provide "hyper specific content, recommendations, opportunities or offers relevant to the user". The content presented on Margot's keyboard was credited to Margot in the mapping of claim 1, and Margot further teaches that this content comprises entities previously created by the user and stored in the user's profile (the recited "other entities previously created by said designer"), as well as content, offers and resources drawn from sources external to the system. Because the claim requires only "at least one of" the recited categories of content, Margot's teaching satisfies the limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to present, on the intelligent keyboard of the claim 1 combination, content comprising entities previously created by the designer and content drawn from external sources as taught by Margot, for the same reasons and with the same predictable improvement in the designer's efficiency set forth for claim 1 above. With respect to claim 10 (Currently Amended), Blumenfeld is silent to disclose, however, in an analogous art, Margot teaches wherein said predefined snippets of programming code define 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 Al (artificial intelligence system) (Margot [0037]: the intelligent keyboard "use[s] the enhanced context ... to add events to a user's preferred calendar application without leaving the intelligent keyboard", i.e., an API use that changes the keyboard's user interface and function; Margot [0030]: the system "uses this natural language capability to generate conversation content and responses that are presented in the intelligent keyboard". Margot's keyboard is controlled through calls to the Artificial Intelligence Models API (an API use to change the UI) and through the use of a generative artificial intelligence system that generates the content presented on the keyboard. Because the claim requires only "at least one of" the recited options, Margot's teaching of an API use to change the UI and of the use of a generative AI satisfies the limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the intelligent keyboard of the claim 1 combination by an API use that changes its user interface and by a generative AI system as taught by Margot, for the same reasons and with the same predictable improvement set forth for claim 1 above. With respect to claim 11 (Currently Amended), Blumenfeld is silent to disclose, however, in an analogous art, Margot teaches wherein said snippets are pre-defined by 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 (Margot [0048]: the "live keyboard content" served to the keyboard "contains AI generated content, user generated content and platform generated content"; [0051]: the "Initial screen 55 shows the intelligent keyboard as it is generating keyboard content". Margot teaches that the keyboard content is pre-defined both by the platform owner/vendor and by the user (the designer), and that this content is generated and displayed for selection on the initial screen as the keyboard initializes, which is the pre-definition and initialization-time display recited by the claim.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pre-define the keyboard content of the claim 1 combination by the vendor and by the designer and display it for selection as the keyboard initializes, as taught by Margot, for the same reasons and with the same predictable improvement set forth for claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 13, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 1 in method form and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Blumenfeld in view of Margot for the same reasons set forth for claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 14, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 1 in method form and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Blumenfeld in view of Margot for the same reasons set forth for claim 2 above.
With respect to claim 15, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 1 in method form and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Blumenfeld in view of Margot for the same reasons set forth for claim 3 above.
With respect to claim 16, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 1 in method form and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Blumenfeld in view of Margot for the same reasons set forth for claim 4 above.
With respect to claim 17, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 1 in method form and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Blumenfeld in view of Margot for the same reasons set forth for claim 5 above.
With respect to claim 18, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 1 in method form and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Blumenfeld in view of Margot for the same reasons set forth for claim 6 above.
With respect to claim 22, claim 22 recites corresponding limitations in method form and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 10.
With respect to claim 23, claim 23 recites corresponding limitations in method form and is rejected for the same reasons set forth for claim 11.
Claims 7-8 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 – previously presented) in view of Margot et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0244847, hereinafter Margot) in view of Aviyam et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0200943, hereinafter Aviyam – previously presented) and further in view of Kaufman et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0282218, hereinafter Kaufman, previously presented).
With respect to claim 7 (Currently Amended), Blumenfeld in view of Margot in view of Kaufman 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 (Aviyam [0214]: "Website analyzer 153 may ... determine potential improvements"; [0216]: the decision maker engine may include "an artificial intelligence or machine learning model"; [0299]: recommendations are developed "based on a machine learning model". Aviyam's website analyzer and decision maker engine analyze the website and its collected parameters and, using an artificial intelligence/machine learning model, determine recommendations for the content, which is the recited analyzer.)
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 (Aviyam [0004]: "Promotions of offerings provided by a website"; [0270]: a "campaign manager UI" used by the website developer to create and distribute promotional content on a third-party platform. Aviyam's campaign management determines promotional campaigns and offerings for display in conjunction with a third-party (external) advertising platform; a coupon is a well-known form of such promotional offering, and its determination for display is thereby taught.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Aviyam's analyzer and campaign/coupon handler to the Blumenfeld/Margot system, because Aviyam teaches that such integration provides "improved integration of promotional content generation systems and optimizing the content" (Aviyam [0005]), thereby improving the relevance and performance of the content presented on the transitional page.
Blumenfeld in view of Margot 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 (Kaufman [0260]: "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 ... such search box would be shown to the end-user ... allowing the end-user to selectively filter or search the displayed content". Kaufman's search box creator enables the designer to specify, according to given search criteria, the subset of the collection content that is displayed to and searchable by the end-user, i.e., it determines what content is presented to the end-user for end-user searching purposes, which is the recited search box handler.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Kaufman's search box handler to the combination of Blumenfeld, Margot and Aviyam, so as to enable the designer to specify, and the end-user to selectively filter or search, the content displayed on the transitional page, as taught by Kaufman.
With respect to claim 8 (Currently Amended), Blumenfeld in view of Margot n view of Kaufman is silent to disclose, however, in an analogous art, Aviyam teaches 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 (Aviyam [0216]: the decision maker engine "may include an artificial intelligence or machine learning model to both optimize the website and the content generation". Aviyam's decision maker engine is an artificial intelligence/machine learning engine that provides the artificial intelligence and trains the machine learning model.) and
a recommender to make recommendations to said input presenter according to an output of said AI/ML engine (Aviyam [0299]: the promotion system "may develop a set of recommendations based on a machine learning model"; [0215]: "Decision maker engine 154 ... generates recommendations". Aviyam's decision maker engine makes recommendations according to the output of the machine-learning model, i.e., a recommender.) The motivation set forth for claim 7 applies equally to claim 8.
With respect to claims 19-20, the claims recite limitations corresponding, in method form, to the system of claims 7-8 respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 7-8.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumenfeld et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0151226, hereinafter Blumenfeld – previously presented) in view of Aviyam et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0200943, hereinafter Aviyam – previously presented) and further in view of Margot et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0244847, hereinafter Margot). With respect to claim 12 (Currently Amended) Blumenfeld teaches a system, the system comprising: at least one processor (Blumenfeld [0285]: "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, said unit comprising: (Blumenfeld [0109]: the WCA module comprises a "WCA building environment (app builder) 360", by which the designer builds the page). 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 (Aviyam [0215]: "Decision maker engine 154 ... generates recommendations"; [0299]: "the promotion system 100 may develop a set of recommendations based on a machine learning model". Aviyam's decision maker engine generates recommendations, based on a machine learning model, for the features and content used to build the website, and thus supplies the creation of the transitional page comprising at least one feature according to recommendations.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the page creation of Blumenfeld so that the designer creates the page comprising at least one feature according to recommendations as taught by Aviyam, because Aviyam identifies a need for "improved integration of promotional content generation systems and optimizing the content" (Aviyam [0005]), and the incorporation of Aviyam's recommendations would predictably improve the relevance and performance of the content of the designer's page. Blumenfeld in view of Aviyam is silent to disclose, however, in an analogous art, Margot teaches: 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: designer websites previously created and shared links, products, videos and services by said designer (Margot [0022]: the app "controls keyboard extension 11 which is the actual intelligent keyboard on the user's device"; [0043] and [0048]: the system builds a user profile and serves ranked "live keyboard content" selected according to that user's profile and previously stored content; [0049]: "Profile data 105 is information about the user or user of the intelligent keyboard as well as data collected about the people to whom users are speaking". Margot's intelligent keyboard is a personalized input mechanism that an input presenter determines and presents to the designer, serving content selected according to the designer's own profile and previously created and stored content.) wherein said input presenter dynamically changes the presentation of said personalized input mechanism according to changing context of a communication between the designer and at least one end-user (Margot [0056]: the keyboard "is monitoring the user's context, i.e. the location the keyboard is used", and the "information is passed to the system to optimize the content presented to the present user"; [0051]: the keyboard "generating keyboard content appropriate for the context") and wherein said personalized input mechanism is a keyboard controlled by predefined snippets of programming code to modify a user interface of the keyboard in response to conversational content within said communication (Margot [0031]: "if 'How are you?' is sent to the Artificial Intelligence Models API, it might respond 'I am doing well, thank you'"; [0030]: the system "uses this natural language capability to generate conversation content and responses that are presented in the intelligent keyboard"; [0037]: an API use to change the keyboard), as mapped and explained in full for claim 1 above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the personalized input mechanism of the Blumenfeld/Aviyam system as the context-aware intelligent keyboard of Margot, controlled by code and API calls to modify its user interface in response to the conversational content of the communication, for the same reasons and with the same predictable improvement in the designer's efficiency set forth for claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights