DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 03/30/2026. Independent claims 1, 7, and 15 were amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the case.
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 7-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In the latest response, independent claims 7 and 15 have been amended with an added a limitation reciting to “transition the browser tab that is inactive.” However, there is no precedent whatsoever for “a browser tab” in independent claims 7 and 15 (and even less so “the browser tab that is inactive”). Therefore, the metes and bounds of the aforementioned new limitation cannot be objectively ascertained as currently recited since it is unclear how the Applicant’s undefined “browser tab” limitation fits into these “content stage”-based claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Young et al. (US Patent No. 9,772,979, hereinafter “Young”).
As to independent claim 1, Young shows a system for webpage transitioning [figs. 1-2], the system comprising:
one or more memories [col. 14, lines 02-14]; and
one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories [col. 14, line 01], configured to:
receive content interaction data, associated with a webpage of a website, that satisfies one or more content interaction conditions [interaction data of a user interacting with a webpage that satisfies one or more thresholds/conditions is received (col. 8, lines 01-32)];
receive an indication that a browser tab configured to display the webpage is inactive [receiving an indication that a browser tab configured to display the webpage is a background/inactive tab (col. 9, lines 41-51 and col. 10, lines 01-33)]; and
transmit, based on the one or more content interaction conditions being satisfied and the browser tab being inactive, an indication to transition the browser tab that is inactive to another webpage of the website [an indication to transition the inactive browser tab to another webpage (and/or to continue the automated browsing session transition throughout multiple webpages) may be transmitted based on the user’s past interaction data thresholds being satisfied and the background/inactive tab (col. 9, lines 41-51; col. 10, lines 01-33; and col. 11, line 21 – col. 12, line 37)].
As to dependent claim 2, Young further shows:
wherein the one or more content interaction conditions include a scroll depth threshold [the one or more content interaction conditions include a scroll depth threshold (col. 6, line 60 – col. 7, line 02 and col. 8, lines 14-32)].
As to dependent claim 3, Young further shows:
wherein the one or more content interaction conditions include an active time threshold [the one or more content interaction conditions include an active time threshold (col. 6, line 60 – col. 7, line 02 and col. 8, lines 14-32)].
As to dependent claim 4, Young further shows:
wherein the one or more content interaction conditions include a hover time threshold [the one or more content interaction conditions include a hover time threshold (col. 6, line 60 – col. 7, line 02 and col. 8, lines 14-32)].
As to dependent claim 5, Young further shows:
wherein the one or more content interaction conditions include a focusable element change [the one or more content interaction conditions include a focusable/clickable element change (col. 6, line 60 – col. 7, line 02, col. 8, lines 21-30, and col. 10, lines 01-33)].
As to dependent claim 6, Young further shows:
wherein the one or more content interaction conditions include multiple content interaction conditions [the one or more content interaction conditions include multiple content interaction conditions (col. 6, line 60 – col. 7, line 02 and col. 8, lines 14-32)].
As to independent claim 7, Young shows a method of content stage transitioning [col. 13, line 65], comprising:
receiving content interaction data, associated with a content stage of a plurality of content stages, that satisfies one or more content interaction conditions [interaction data of a user interacting with a content stage/webpage that satisfies one or more thresholds/conditions is received (col. 8, lines 01-32)];
receiving an indication that a display associated with the content stage is inactive [receiving an indication that a browser tab configured to display the webpage is a background/inactive tab (col. 9, lines 41-51 and col. 10, lines 01-33)]; and
transmitting, based on the one or more content interaction conditions being satisfied and the display being inactive, an indication to transition the browser tab that is inactive to another content stage of the plurality of content stages [an indication to transition “the inactive browser tab” to another content stage/webpage (and/or to continue the automated browsing session transition throughout multiple stages/webpages) may be transmitted based on the user’s past interaction data thresholds being satisfied and the background/inactive tab (col. 9, lines 41-51; col. 10, lines 01-33; and col. 11, line 21 – col. 12, line 37)].
As to dependent claim 8, Young further shows:
wherein the one or more content interaction conditions include one or more of: a scroll depth threshold, an active time threshold, a hover time threshold, or a focusable element change [the one or more content interaction conditions include one or more of: a scroll depth threshold, an active time threshold, a hover time threshold, or a focusable element change (col. 6, line 60 – col. 7, line 02 and col. 8, lines 14-32)].
As to dependent claim 9, Young further shows:
wherein the one or more content interaction conditions include multiple content interaction conditions [the one or more content interaction conditions include multiple content interaction conditions (col. 6, line 60 – col. 7, line 02 and col. 8, lines 14-32)].
As to dependent claim 10, Young further shows:
receiving feedback associated with the transition to the other content stage [feedback associated with the transition to the other content stage is received (col. 3, lines 25-27; col. 9, lines 41-51; col. 10, lines 23-33 & 55-67; and col. 11, lines 01-20)].
As to dependent claim 11, Young further shows:
wherein transmitting the indication to transition to the other content stage includes transmitting the indication to transition to the other content stage based on content stage transition feedback [transmitting the indication to transition to the other content stage may be based on content stage transition feedback (col. 3, lines 25-27; col. 9, lines 41-51; col. 10, lines 23-33 & 55-67; and col. 11, lines 01-20)].
As to dependent claim 12, Young further shows:
transmitting an indication to display to an alert associated with the transition to the other content stage [an indication to display to an alert/notification associated with the transition to the other content stage may be transmitted (col. 10, lines 23-33 and col. 11; lines 11-15)].
As to dependent claim 13, Young further shows:
receiving an indication to enable or disable content stage transitioning [an indication to enable or disable (and/or manually override) content stage transitioning may be received (col. 3, lines 42-45; col. 11, lines 59-62; and col. 12, lines 01-08)].
As to dependent claim 14, Young further shows:
wherein the indication to transition to the other content stage is associated with a plurality of displays [the indication to transition to the other content stage is associated with a plurality of displays (col. 3, lines 15-59)].
As to independent claim 15, Young shows a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to [col. 14, lines 01-14]:
receive content interaction data, associated with a content stage of a plurality of content stages, that satisfies one or more content interaction conditions [interaction data of a user interacting with a content stage/webpage that satisfies one or more thresholds/conditions is received (col. 8, lines 01-32)];
receive an indication that a display associated with the content stage is inactive [receiving an indication that a browser tab configured to display the webpage is a background/inactive tab (col. 9, lines 41-51 and col. 10, lines 01-33)];
transmit, based on the one or more content interaction conditions being satisfied, the display being inactive, and content stage transition feedback, an indication to transition the browser tab that is inactive to another content stage of the plurality of content stages [an indication to transition “the inactive browser tab” to another content stage/webpage (and/or to continue the automated browsing session transition throughout multiple stages/webpages) may be transmitted based on the user’s past interaction data thresholds being satisfied, the background/inactive tab, and content stage transition feedback (col. 9, lines 41-51; col. 10, lines 01-33; and col. 11, line 21 – col. 12, line 37)]; and
receive feedback associated with the transition to the other content stage [feedback associated with the transition to the other content stage is received (col. 3, lines 25-27; col. 9, lines 41-51; col. 10, lines 23-33 & 55-67; and col. 11, lines 01-20)].
As to dependent claim 16, Young further shows:
wherein the one or more content interaction conditions include one or more of: a scroll depth threshold, an active time threshold, a hover time threshold, or a focusable element change [the one or more content interaction conditions include one or more of: a scroll depth threshold, an active time threshold, a hover time threshold, or a focusable element change (col. 6, line 60 – col. 7, line 02 and col. 8, lines 14-32)].
As to dependent claim 17, Young further shows:
wherein the one or more content interaction conditions include multiple content interaction conditions [the one or more content interaction conditions include multiple content interaction conditions (col. 6, line 60 – col. 7, line 02 and col. 8, lines 14-32)].
As to dependent claim 18, Young further shows:
transmit an indication to display to an alert associated with the transition to the other content stage [an indication to display to an alert/notification associated with the transition to the other content stage may be transmitted (col. 10, lines 23-33 and col. 11; lines 11-15)].
As to dependent claim 19, Young further shows:
receive an indication to enable or disable content stage transitioning [an indication to enable or disable (and/or manually override) content stage transitioning may be received (col. 3, lines 42-45; col. 11, lines 59-62; and col. 12, lines 01-08)].
As to dependent claim 20, Young further shows:
wherein the indication to transition to the other content stage is associated with a plurality of displays [the indication to transition to the other content stage is associated with a plurality of displays (col. 3, lines 15-59)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“Applicant respectfully submits that YOUNG does not teach or suggest each and every feature of the independent claims. For example, the cited sections of YOUNG do not disclose at least "transmit[ting], based on the one or more content interaction conditions being satisfied and the browser tab being inactive, an indication to transition the browser tab that is inactive to another webpage of the website," as recited in claim 1, as amended. The Office Action relies on col. 9, lines 41-51 and col. 10, lines 1-33 of YOUNG as allegedly disclosing "transmit[ting], based on the one or more content interaction conditions being satisfied and the browser tab being inactive, an indication to transition to another webpage of the website," as recited in previously presented claim 1. See Office Action, page 3. However, the cited sections of YOUNG only disclose opening new browser tabs or windows to present suggested browsing session content, including opening such tabs in the background or as inactive tabs. YOUNG does not disclose transitioning the content of the same browser tab that has become inactive to another webpage. Instead, the system disclosed in YOUNG leaves the original tab unchanged and presents new content in a separate tab or window. Additionally, YOUNG does not disclose that both the satisfaction of content interaction conditions and the inactivity of the browser tab are required as conditions for transitioning to new content. Rather, YOUNG presents new content either based on user interaction patterns or by opening background/inactive tabs, but does not require that both conditions be met together as a prerequisite for transitioning. Accordingly, YOUNG does not teach or suggest "transmit[ting], based on the one or more content interaction conditions being satisfied and the browser tab being inactive, an indication to transition the browser tab that is inactive to another webpage of the website," as recited in amended claim 1 (emphasis added). Independent claims 7 and 15 recite similar subject matter as amended claim 1. Therefore, independent claims 1, 7, and 15, and the claims that depend thereon, are patentable over the cited sections of YOUNG.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. First, even though the Office does not necessarily rely on the following technicality, it is nonetheless respectfully noted that the claim limitation in question appears to be significantly broader than what appears to be implied by Applicant’s argument above because the limitation merely requires to “transmit {…} an indication” with an intended result, with the actual act of transitioning never actually/actively taking place and/or being covered/required by the claims as currently recited. Moreover, as to Applicant’s allegation that “YOUNG does not disclose transitioning the content of the same browser tab that has become inactive to another webpage,” the Office notes that such a feature is not exactly claimed as alleged (in addition to the mere transmission of the indication issue indicated above, the limitation actually recites “to transition the browser tab” itself, not necessarily its “content” as argued above). Furthermore, Applicant is respectfully reminded that Young shows a fully automated browsing session experience (see, for example, Young: col. 3, lines 32-41). Therein, Young expressly establishes that its suggested/automated browsing sessions include presenting one or more background/inactive tabs (col. 9, lines 41-51 and col. 10, lines 01-33), and to continue transitioning/updating (including doing so automatically | col. 11, lines 21-33) said browser sessions (which include the background/inactive tab) to another/subsequent webpage of the same browser. Moreover, these automated browsing sessions are based on both the user’s past interaction data thresholds being satisfied (col. 8, lines 01-32) and the background/inactive tab itself (col. 9, lines 41-51; col. 10, lines 01-33; and col. 11, line 21 – col. 12, line 37) due at least to the fact that the automated browsing sessions take into account the user’s past interaction data in order to be able to accurately predict what would be of interest to the user during future browsing sessions, and also the fact that background/inactive tabs are part of both/either the user’s past interaction data that may be recorded and/or part of the subsequent session content to be automated. Therefore, the Office respectfully asserts that the cited art sufficiently teaches the limitations recited in the amended claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 5:00pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO R. CALDERON IV/
Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights