DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant patent application.
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.
Regarding Claims 1-14, they are directed to a method, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-14 are directed to the abstract idea of HTML webpage optimization.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 1, claim 1 recites choosing either the first version or the variant version of the HTML webpage to respond to the client request based on a probability from a set of probabilities of sending different versions of the HTML webpage; receiving a metric related to the performance of the chosen version of the HTML webpage; tracking the metric for the first version of the HTML webpage and the variant version of the HTML webpage with tracking software for performance measurement; and updating, the set of probabilities of sending different versions of the HTML webpage based on the metrics related to the performance; wherein the set of probabilities is updated to test different variants of the HTML webpage, and the set of probabilities is biased towards variants that are associated with high metrics of performance.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. Furthermore, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. In addition, the claim limitations fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas due to the commercial interactions taking place as the claim limitations pertain tracking user actions and performances on a webpage.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 2-14 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of transmitting a first edge request for a HTML webpage using a network to an origin server, receiving from the origin server a first version of the HTML webpage, modifying the first version of the HTML webpage to create a variant version of the HTML webpage, receiving a client request from a client device, transmitting the chosen version of the HTML webpage to the client device, an edge computing system and an edge-side bias module. The transmitting a first edge request for a HTML webpage using a network to an origin server, receiving from the origin server a first version of the HTML webpage, modifying the first version of the HTML webpage to create a variant version of the HTML webpage, receiving a client request from a client device, transmitting the chosen version of the HTML webpage to the client device, an edge computing system and an edge-side bias module are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1, 4, 9-13 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include transmitting a first edge request for a HTML webpage using a network to an origin server, receiving from the origin server a first version of the HTML webpage, modifying the first version of the HTML webpage to create a variant version of the HTML webpage, receiving a client request from a client device, transmitting the chosen version of the HTML webpage to the client device, an edge computing system, an edge-side bias module, plurality of edge devices, a first edge device, a second edge device, a second client device and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0038, 0042-0044. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions. In addition, Claim 1 recites computer functions that the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii)…at least, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network))).
Therefore, Claims 1, 4 and 9-13, alone or in combination, are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 15-19, they are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 15-19 are directed to the abstract idea of HTML webpage optimization.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 15, claim 15 recites choosing either the first version or the variant version of the HTML webpage to respond based on a probability; receiving a metric related to the performance of the chosen version of the HTML webpage; tracking the metric of the first version of the HTML webpage and the variant version of the HTML webpage with tracking software for performance measurement; updating the probability of sending different versions of the client based on their associated metrics.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. Furthermore, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. In addition, the claim limitations fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas due to the commercial interactions taking place as the claim limitations pertain tracking user actions and performances on a webpage.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 16-19 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of transmitting a first edge request for a HTML webpage using a network to an origin server; receiving from the origin server a first version of the HTML webpage; modifying the first version of the HTML webpage to create a variant version of the HTML webpage; receiving a client request from a client device; transmitting the chosen version of the HTML webpage to the client device, an edge computing system and an edge-side bias module. The transmitting a first edge request for a HTML webpage using a network to an origin server; receiving from the origin server a first version of the HTML webpage; modifying the first version of the HTML webpage to create a variant version of the HTML webpage; receiving a client request from a client device; transmitting the chosen version of the HTML webpage to the client device, an edge computing system and an edge-side bias module are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 15-18 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include transmitting a first edge request for a HTML webpage using a network to an origin server; receiving from the origin server a first version of the HTML webpage; modifying the first version of the HTML webpage to create a variant version of the HTML webpage; receiving a client request from a client device; transmitting the chosen version of the HTML webpage to the client device, an edge computing system and an edge-side bias module, a plurality of edge devices and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0038, 0042-0044. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions. In addition, Claim 15 recites computer functions that the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii)…at least, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network))).
Therefore, Claims 15-18, alone or in combination, are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 20 it is directed to a system, however the claim is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claim 20 is directed to the abstract idea of HTML webpage optimization.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 20, claim 20 recites a means for choosing either the first version or the variant version of the HTML webpage to respond based on a probability; a means for receiving a metric related to the performance of the chosen version of the HTML webpage; a means for tracking the metric of the first version of the HTML webpage and the variant version of the HTML webpage with tracking software for performance measurement; and a means for updating the probability of sending different versions of the client based on their associated metrics.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper. Furthermore, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. In addition, the claim limitations fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas due to the commercial interactions taking place as the claim limitations pertain tracking user actions and performances on a webpage.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a means for transmitting a first edge request for a HTML webpage using a network to an origin server; a means for receiving from the origin server a first version of the HTML webpage; a means for modifying the first version of the HTML webpage to create a variant version of the HTML webpage; a means for receiving a client request from a client device; a means for transmitting the chosen version of the HTML webpage to the client device and an edge-side bias module. a means for transmitting a first edge request for a HTML webpage using a network to an origin server; a means for receiving from the origin server a first version of the HTML webpage; a means for modifying the first version of the HTML webpage to create a variant version of the HTML webpage; a means for receiving a client request from a client device; a means for transmitting the chosen version of the HTML webpage to the client device and an edge-side bias module are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 20 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a means for transmitting a first edge request for a HTML webpage using a network to an origin server; a means for receiving from the origin server a first version of the HTML webpage; a means for modifying the first version of the HTML webpage to create a variant version of the HTML webpage; a means for receiving a client request from a client device; a means for transmitting the chosen version of the HTML webpage to the client device, an edge-side bias module and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0038, 0042-0044. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions. In addition, Claim 20 recites computer functions that the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii)…at least, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network))).
Therefore, Claim 1 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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(s) 1, 5, 7-8, 11, 13-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joel et al. (US 8,285,808 B1) in view of Givoni (US 2015/0007064 A1) further in view of Hassan (US 10,248,628 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Joel teaches the limitations of Claim 1 which state
transmitting a first edge request for a HTML webpage using a network to an origin server (Joel: Col 10 lines 20-41 via FIGS. 2A-B are data flow diagrams illustrating exemplary operations of the page acceleration service according to one embodiment. The client network application 115 establishes a TCP connection 205 with the proxy server 120 using known techniques. The client network application 115 then sends a request for an HTML document to the proxy server 120. The request for the HTML document may be received by the proxy server 120 due to the domain hosting the HTML document resolving to the proxy server 120. As another example, the client network application 115 may be configured to directly send the request to the proxy server 120 regardless whether the domain hosting the HTML document resolves to the proxy server 120. Assuming that the proxy server 120 does not have the HTML document in its cache, the proxy server 120 forwards the request 212 to the appropriate origin server 130A for the HTML document. Although not illustrated in order not to obscure understanding of the invention, the proxy server 120 establishes a TCP connection with the origin server 130A. The proxy server 120 then receives a response 214 with the requested HTML document. The proxy server 120 may then store the HTML document in its cache);
receiving from the origin server a first version of the HTML webpage (Joel: Col 10 lines 20-41 via FIGS. 2A-B are data flow diagrams illustrating exemplary operations of the page acceleration service according to one embodiment. The client network application 115 establishes a TCP connection 205 with the proxy server 120 using known techniques. The client network application 115 then sends a request for an HTML document to the proxy server 120. The request for the HTML document may be received by the proxy server 120 due to the domain hosting the HTML document resolving to the proxy server 120. As another example, the client network application 115 may be configured to directly send the request to the proxy server 120 regardless whether the domain hosting the HTML document resolves to the proxy server 120. Assuming that the proxy server 120 does not have the HTML document in its cache, the proxy server 120 forwards the request 212 to the appropriate origin server 130A for the HTML document. Although not illustrated in order not to obscure understanding of the invention, the proxy server 120 establishes a TCP connection with the origin server 130A. The proxy server 120 then receives a response 214 with the requested HTML document. The proxy server 120 may then store the HTML document in its cache);
modifying the first version of the HTML webpage to create a variant version of the HTML webpage (Joel: Col 10 lines 42-61 via The proxy server 120 then modifies the HTML document for page acceleration at operation 216. For example, as described above the proxy server 120 inserts the loader 222 (or a reference to the loader) in the HTML document, and modifies object(s) 224 (e.g., one or more client-side scripts, images, CSS, classes, styles, audio files, video files, or other object) in the HTML document that have an external source (e.g., a "src" attribute) such that the loading of those objects is deferred. The loader 222 and the modified object(s) 224 may be interspersed with non-object HTML code. The proxy server 120 transmits the response 218 that includes the modified HTML document to the client network application 115. The request 210 and the response 218 are transmitted using the TCP connection 205. After receiving the response 218, the TCP connection 205 may be torn down or alternatively may be kept alive. In one embodiment, the proxy server 120 stores the modified HTML document in its cache so that it may respond to future requests for the same HTML document without performing the same modifications and without querying the origin server for the HTML document);
receiving a client request from a client device (Joel: Col 5 lines 13-41 via The proxy server 120 is a computing device that is situated between the client devices 110A-I and the origin servers 130A-L and provides many of the features of the page acceleration service. Certain network traffic passes through the proxy server 120 (traffic sent from the client devices 110A-I and/or traffic sent from the origin servers 130A-L). Based on at least in part on this traffic, the proxy server 120 provides at least a portion of the improved loading of web resources which will be described in greater detail later herein. The client devices 110A-I request DNS resolution when a domain name is used or requested by their client network application and is not known (e.g., is not in a local DNS cache or the DNS record in its local cache has expired). Consider the following example, where a user of the client device 110A enters the website example.com into a web browser of the device (the origin server 130A serves the website example.com). If the client device 110A does not know the IP address of example.com, (e.g., the cache on the client device 110A does not have an entry for example.com or it has expired), the client device makes a DNS request 150 to the DNS system 140 for the IP address for example.com. The domain owner of example.com has changed its authoritative name server to the authoritative name server 142).
However, Joel does not explicitly disclose the limitation of Claim 1 which states choosing either the first version or the variant version of the HTML webpage to respond to the client request based on a probability from a set of probabilities of sending different versions of the HTML webpage.
Givoni though, with the teachings of Joel, teaches of
choosing either the first version or the variant version of the HTML webpage to respond to the client request based on a probability from a set of probabilities of sending different versions of the HTML webpage (Givoni: Para 0021 via Overall, embodiments of the present disclosure employ an A/B type testing scheme and an automatic loop process of showing a selection of layout variants in a probability distribution, assessing the relative performances of the set of variants, and dynamically adjusting the set of variants and respective display distribution probabilities by using the assessment results as the feedback. More explicitly, a set of variants are generated and presented to visitors in respective proportions or distribution probabilities. The respective impacts of the variants on visitors are assessed and compared based on statistic data collected from visitor interactions with the variants. The assessment results are then incorporated to modify the set of variants, such as removing a badly performing one and adding a promising one, and to adjust the distribution probabilities for instance. The modified set of variants are then displayed in the respective adjusted distribution probabilities, and assessed again. Eventually one or more variants with superior performances can be advantageously determined empirically and automatically).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Joel with the teachings of Givoni in order to have choosing either the first version or the variant version of the HTML webpage to respond to the client request based on a probability from a set of probabilities of sending different versions of the HTML webpage. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of determining the performance of multiple webpage layouts. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Furthermore, Joel does not explicitly disclose the limitation of Claim 1 which states transmitting the chosen version of the HTML webpage to the client device.
Hassan though, with the teachings of Joel/Givoni, teaches of
transmitting the chosen version of the HTML webpage to the client device (Hassan: Col 6 lines 35-54 via A posterior distribution is provided for each version of the website (508). In accordance with implementations of the present disclosure, each posterior distribution is provided as: f(θ.sub.i(i=1, . . . ,k)|n.sub.1,n.sub.2, . . . ,n.sub.k,n)=f(n.sub.1+α.sub.1,n.sub.2+α.sub.2, . . . ,n.sub.k+α.sub.k)(θ.sub.1,θ.sub.2, . . . ,θ.sub.k) where n is the total number of users visiting a respective version k of the website, α is a shape parameter, and θ is a probability of one or more users visiting the respective version k of the website. A best version of the website is identified based on the posterior distributions (510). For example, and as described by way of example with reference to FIG. 4 above, a posterior distribution that indicates the highest click-through rate can be identified, and the version of the website corresponding to that posterior distribution can be selected as the best version of the website. In some examples, the best version of the website is hosted on one or more servers. For example, the best version of the website is made available for public access, where users can interact with the website using respective client-side devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Joel/Givoni with the teachings of Hassan in order to have transmitting the chosen version of the HTML webpage to the client device. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of performing a selection of a version of a website from multiple versions of the website as taught by Hassan. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The combination of Joel/Givoni/Hassan further teaches the limitations of Claim 1 which state
receiving from the client device a metric related to the performance of the chosen version of the HTML webpage on the client device (Givoni: Para 0029 via As will be appreciated by those with ordinary skills in the art, the present disclosure is not limited by any particular evaluation metrics or any particular method of evaluation computing. In the context of e-commerce marketing, several marketing performance indicators, or metrics, can be derived from the statistic data and used for evaluating the revenue impact caused by the corresponding layout variant. The evaluation may be based on actual data, estimated data, or predicted data, and so on. In some other embodiments, the performance can be evaluated by computing one or more metrics indicative of direct revenue impact, such as conversion rate, revenue, and profit, which may be either actual or estimated. In some other embodiments, metrics indicative of indirect revenue impact can be used for evaluation computation, such as user clicks and user engagement. In some embodiments, different widgets or different categories of products can be evaluated using different metrics. For a book store for instance, estimated profits generated from advertisements, and other marketing items can be used for non-book related widgets; while conversion rates can be used for book related widgets. In some embodiments, the evaluation results with respect to the set of variants can be ranked in the form of scores);
tracking the metric for the first version of the HTML webpage and the variant version of the HTML webpage with tracking software for performance measurement (Hassan: Col 5 lines 43-57, Col 6 lines 11-34 via As will be appreciated by those with ordinary skills in the art, the present disclosure is not limited by any particular evaluation metrics or any particular method of evaluation computing. In the context of e-commerce marketing, several marketing performance indicators, or metrics, can be derived from the statistic data and used for evaluating the revenue impact caused by the corresponding layout variant. The evaluation may be based on actual data, estimated data, or predicted data, and so on. In some other embodiments, the performance can be evaluated by computing one or more metrics indicative of direct revenue impact, such as conversion rate, revenue, and profit, which may be either actual or estimated. In some other embodiments, metrics indicative of indirect revenue impact can be used for evaluation computation, such as user clicks and user engagement. In some embodiments, different widgets or different categories of products can be evaluated using different metrics. For a book store for instance, estimated profits generated from advertisements, and other marketing items can be used for non-book related widgets; while conversion rates can be used for book related widgets. In some embodiments, the evaluation results with respect to the set of variants can be ranked in the form of scores…Multiple versions of a website are provided (502). For example, multiple versions of the website can be developed, and one or more web pages within each version of the website can be programmed with computer-executable code (e.g., Javascript) that is responsive to user interaction with the web page. In some examples, computer-executable code embedded within each web page is executable to collect user interaction data (e.g., hover overs, clicks), and transmit the user interaction data to a stream processor engine. User interaction with each of the multiple versions of the website is enabled (504). In some examples, each version of the website is hosted on one or more servers, and is made available for user interaction therewith. In some examples, the multiple versions of the website are made available to the public (e.g., any user can use any appropriate client-side device to interact with a version of the website). In some examples, access to one or more versions of the website may be limited to a sub-set of users (e.g., a test group). In this manner, the various versions of the website can be tested before the website is publicly available. User interaction data is collected (506). In some examples, and as described herein, user interactions with the respective versions of the website are captured as user interaction data, which is provided to a stream processor engine); and
updating, using an edge-side bias module, the set of probabilities of sending different versions of the HTML webpage based on the metrics related to the performance (Hassan: Col 3 lines 6-23, Col 5 line 58 – Col 6 line 3 via User interaction with each of the multiple versions of the website is enabled (504). In some examples, each version of the website is hosted on one or more servers, and is made available for user interaction therewith. In some examples, the multiple versions of the website are made available to the public (e.g., any user can use any appropriate client-side device to interact with a version of the website). In some examples, access to one or more versions of the website may be limited to a sub-set of users (e.g., a test group). In this manner, the various versions of the website can be tested before the website is publicly available. User interaction data is collected (506). In some examples, and as described herein, user interactions with the respective versions of the website are captured as user interaction data, which is provided to a stream processor engine…FIG. 4 provides a graph 400 of posterior distributions of three web page versions A, B, and C. The example of FIG. 4 is based on experiments conducted for 100 users, which either click on the respective web page, or do nothing. As seen from the graph of FIG. 4, for version A, there is a 95% chance that the click conversion rate will be between 5% and 17%. Similarly, for version B, the conversion rate is between 9% and 23% for 95% of the accesses. The best version, however, is version C, where the conversion rate of 33% to 55% is observed for 95% of the cases. Accordingly, implementations of the present disclosure enable a web page version to be precisely identified as the best version through statistical modelling);
wherein the set of probabilities is updated to test different variants of the HTML webpage, and the set of probabilities is biased towards variants that are associated with high metrics of performance (Hassan: Col 3 lines 6-23, Col 5 line 58 – Col 6 line 3 via User interaction with each of the multiple versions of the website is enabled (504). In some examples, each version of the website is hosted on one or more servers, and is made available for user interaction therewith. In some examples, the multiple versions of the website are made available to the public (e.g., any user can use any appropriate client-side device to interact with a version of the website). In some examples, access to one or more versions of the website may be limited to a sub-set of users (e.g., a test group). In this manner, the various versions of the website can be tested before the website is publicly available. User interaction data is collected (506). In some examples, and as described herein, user interactions with the respective versions of the website are captured as user interaction data, which is provided to a stream processor engine…FIG. 4 provides a graph 400 of posterior distributions of three web page versions A, B, and C. The example of FIG. 4 is based on experiments conducted for 100 users, which either click on the respective web page, or do nothing. As seen from the graph of FIG. 4, for version A, there is a 95% chance that the click conversion rate will be between 5% and 17%. Similarly, for version B, the conversion rate is between 9% and 23% for 95% of the accesses. The best version, however, is version C, where the conversion rate of 33% to 55% is observed for 95% of the cases. Accordingly, implementations of the present disclosure enable a web page version to be precisely identified as the best version through statistical modelling).
Regarding Claim 5, Joel/Givoni/Hassan teaches the limitation of Claim 5 which states
wherein tracking the metric of the first version of the HTML webpage includes tracking the conversion rate of a plurality of users of the HTML webpage (Hassan: Col 5 line 58 – Col 6 line 3 via FIG. 4 provides a graph 400 of posterior distributions of three web page versions A, B, and C. The example of FIG. 4 is based on experiments conducted for 100 users, which either click on the respective web page, or do nothing. As seen from the graph of FIG. 4, for version A, there is a 95% chance that the click conversion rate will be between 5% and 17%. Similarly, for version B, the conversion rate is between 9% and 23% for 95% of the accesses. The best version, however, is version C, where the conversion rate of 33% to 55% is observed for 95% of the cases. Accordingly, implementations of the present disclosure enable a web page version to be precisely identified as the best version through statistical modelling).
Regarding Claim 7, Joel/Givoni/Hassan teaches the limitation of Claim 5 which states
wherein the tracking the metric of the first version of the HTML webpage includes tracking the average amount of revenue generated on the page from a plurality of users of the HTML webpage (Givoni: Para 0029 via As will be appreciated by those with ordinary skills in the art, the present disclosure is not limited by any particular evaluation metrics or any particular method of evaluation computing. In the context of e-commerce marketing, several marketing performance indicators, or metrics, can be derived from the statistic data and used for evaluating the revenue impact caused by the corresponding layout variant. The evaluation may be based on actual data, estimated data, or predicted data, and so on. In some other embodiments, the performance can be evaluated by computing one or more metrics indicative of direct revenue impact, such as conversion rate, revenue, and profit, which may be either actual or estimated. In some other embodiments, metrics indicative of indirect revenue impact can be used for evaluation computation, such as user clicks and user engagement. In some embodiments, different widgets or different categories of products can be evaluated using different metrics. For a book store for instance, estimated profits generated from advertisements, and other marketing items can be used for non-book related widgets; while conversion rates can be used for book related widgets. In some embodiments, the evaluation results with respect to the set of variants can be ranked in the form of scores).
Regarding Claim 8, Joel/Givoni/Hassan teaches the limitation of Claim 8 which states
updating the probability of sending a version of the HTML webpage to the client comprises increasing the probability of sending that version of the HTML webpage upon the metric measurement received from the client device indicating positive performance (Givoni: Para 0021, 0029-0030, 0038 via embodiments of the present disclosure employ an A/B type testing scheme and an automatic loop process of showing a selection of layout variants in a probability distribution, assessing the relative performances of the set of variants, and dynamically adjusting the set of variants and respective display distribution probabilities by using the assessment results as the feedback. More explicitly, a set of variants are generated and presented to visitors in respective proportions or distribution probabilities. The respective impacts of the variants on visitors are assessed and compared based on statistic data collected from visitor interactions with the variants. The assessment results are then incorporated to modify the set of variants, such as removing a badly performing one and adding a promising one, and to adjust the distribution probabilities for instance. The modified set of variants are then displayed in the respective adjusted distribution probabilities, and assessed again. Eventually one or more variants with superior performances can be advantageously determined empirically and automatically… As will be appreciated by those with ordinary skills in the art, the present disclosure is not limited by any particular evaluation metrics or any particular method of evaluation computing. In the context of e-commerce marketing, several marketing performance indicators, or metrics, can be derived from the statistic data and used for evaluating the revenue impact caused by the corresponding layout variant. The evaluation may be based on actual data, estimated data, or predicted data, and so on. In some other embodiments, the performance can be evaluated by computing one or more metrics indicative of direct revenue impact, such as conversion rate, revenue, and profit, which may be either actual or estimated… the display probability distribution can be adjusted based on the evaluation for subsequent display of the set of variants. In some embodiments, the probability distribution may be adapted to a weighted distribution wherein the distribution values assigned to each variant are maintained substantially proportional to the respective accumulated scores resulted from the process of 303).
Regarding Claim 11, Joel/Givoni/Hassan teaches the limitation of Claim 11 which states
wherein the set of probabilities is updated using an edge-side bias module that normalizes the metric for performance (Hassan: Col 5 lines 43-57 via FIG. 4 depicts example posterior distributions 400 for example versions of a web page (e.g., k=3). More particularly, the data underlying FIG. 4 is based on merchandising data, where a number of users access different types of e-commerce web pages, and their interest in products is determined through product intent clicks or product purchase clicks that are logged. Javascript is embedded within each web page, which is executable to collect the data, and transmit the data to a stream processor engine. An example stream processor engine includes Apache Flink provided by The Apache Software Foundation, which performs incremental aggregates on the incoming input stream on an event-by-event basis. The data is processed using the models of the present disclosure to provide respective posterior distributions for the web pages).
Regarding Claim 13, Joel/Givoni/Hassan teaches the limitation of Claim 13 which states
uploading to the origin server the variant version of the HTML webpage when the metric related to the performance of the variant version of the HTML webpage reaches a pre-defined high benchmark (Givoni: Para 0038 via As statistic data are collected based on user interaction with the presented variants, evaluations scores are accumulated with respect to each of the set of variants. The display probability of a variant with a poor performance score may be reduced at 403. At 404, if the display probability of a variant falls below a threshold value, it can be discarded. At 405, as for a variant has a superior performance score, e.g., having the highest score, its display probability can be increased, and at the same time the probabilities of the other variants in the set are dialed down correspondingly).
Regarding Claim 14, Joel/Givoni/Hassan teaches the limitation of Claim 14 which states
wherein updating the set of probabilities comprises discarding a low performing version of the HTML webpage when a probability associated with the low performing version reaches a low benchmark (Givoni: Para 0038 via As statistic data are collected based on user interaction with the presented variants, evaluations scores are accumulated with respect to each of the set of variants. The display probability of a variant with a poor performance score may be reduced at 403. At 404, if the display probability of a variant falls below a threshold value, it can be discarded. At 405, as for a variant has a superior performance score, e.g., having the highest score, its display probability can be increased, and at the same time the probabilities of the other variants in the set are dialed down correspondingly).
Regarding Claim 15, it is analogous to Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons (See also Joel: Col 22 lines 1-27).
Regarding Claim 16, it is analogous to Claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 19, it is analogous to Claim 14 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20, it is analogous to Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons (See also Joel: Col 22 lines 1-27).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joel et al. (US 8,285,808 B1) in view of Givoni (US 2015/0007064 A1) in view of Hassan (US 10,248,628 B2) further in view of Khadivi (US 2025/0190183 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, while Joel/Givoni/Hassan teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly teach the limitation of Claim 2 which state wherein the modifying the first version of the HTML webpage includes using generative AI to create the variant version of the HTML webpage.
Khadivi though, with the teachings of Joel/Givoni/Hassan, teaches of
wherein the modifying the first version of the HTML webpage includes using generative AI to create the variant version of the HTML webpage (Khadivi: Para 0036, 0059 via The webpage code received at block 402 and the prompt received at block 404 are provided as input to a generative model, as shown at block 406. Based on the webpage code and the prompt, the generative model generates modified webpage code, as shown at block 408. The generative model generates the modified webpage code by modifying the webpage code in accordance with the instructions included in the prompt. In particular, the generative model generates the modified webpage code such that when rendered, it provides a homepage customized in accordance with the prompt. As shown at block 410, the modified webpage code is provided to a user device for rendering the customized homepage on the user device (e.g., via a web browser or other application on the user device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Joel/Givoni/Hassan with the teachings of Khadivi in order to have wherein the modifying the first version of the HTML webpage includes using generative AI to create the variant version of the HTML webpage. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of using a generative model to customize homepages as taught by Khadivi. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joel et al. (US 8,285,808 B1) in view of Givoni (US 2015/0007064 A1) in view of Hassan (US 10,248,628 B2) further in view of Chan et al. (US 10,534,851 B1).
Regarding Claim 3, while Joel/Givoni/Hassan teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 3 which state wherein modifying the first version of the HTML webpage includes using a WYSIWYG interface to create a modified version of the HTML webpage.
Chan though, with the teachings of Joel/Givoni/Hassan, teaches of
wherein modifying the first version of the HTML webpage includes using a WYSIWYG interface to create a modified version of the HTML webpage (Chan: Col 16 lines 8-24 via As shown in FIG. 4, a WYSIWYG interface 418 (e.g., a modular WYSIWYG admin user interface (UI) that provides a graphical user interface (GUI) for configuring and customizing web pages) is in communication with a page creation service 420. WYSIWYG interface 418 and page creation service 420 can be used by an admin (e.g., a marketer or other user) to create dynamic landing pages as further described herein. For example, WYSIWYG interface 418 can be implemented as an Admin UI (e.g., or other front-end user interfaces can be provided) to customize a web page (e.g., a modified home page of a subscribing web site, a modified category or product page of a subscribing web site, and/or a new web page of a subscribing web site) to generate a customized dynamic landing page. The page creation service 420 can be implemented to generate a completely new web page that can be provided as the customized dynamic landing page).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Joel/Givoni/Hassan with the teachings of Chan in order to have wherein modifying the first version of the HTML webpage includes using a WYSIWYG interface to create a modified version of the HTML webpage. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of updating web pages as taught by Chan. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4, 9-10, 12 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joel et al. (US 8,285,808 B1) in view of Givoni (US 2015/0007064 A1) in view of Hassan (US 10,248,628 B2) further in view of Kucera (2018/0020065 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, while Joel/Givoni/Hassan teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 4 which state wherein the edge computing system is a distributed edge computing system.
Kucera though, with the teachings of Joel/Givoni/Hassan, teaches of
wherein the edge computing system is a distributed edge computing system (Kucera: Para 0054 via Also shown in FIG. 2, the web server 108 includes the test manager 110. In one or more embodiments, the web server 108 functions for a variety of purposes. For example, one or more embodiments described herein utilize the web server 108 for hosting and serving data representative of one or more web pages within a website. In additional or alternative embodiments, the web server 108 can also function as a file server or other type of data server. In one or more embodiments, the web server 108 is representative of a network of servers interconnected for the purpose of supporting a website. For example, in at least one embodiment, the test management system 100 includes multiple networked servers that collectively host a single website. In that case, each networked server may host all or a portion of the website. A load balancer may be employed to ensure that no one server receives an excessive number of web page requests).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Joel/Givoni/Hassan with the teachings of Kucera in order to have wherein the edge computing system is a distributed edge computing system. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of A/B testing of webpages amongst multiple computing devices. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 9, while Joel/Givoni/Hassan teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 9 which state the computer-implemented method is executed by a plurality of edge devices; and each edge device of the distributed edge computing system serves a population of users with its own variant version of the HTML webpage.
Kucera though, with the teachings of Joel/Givoni/Hassan, teaches of
the computer-implemented method is executed by a plurality of edge devices; and each edge device of the distributed edge computing system serves a population of users with its own variant version of the HTML webpage (Kucera: Para 0034, 0054 via In one or more embodiments, if a single web server hosts the entire website, the test manager 110 stores the generated mapping on the single web server. If several networked web servers host the website, the test manager 110 stores the generated mapping on each of the networked web servers. Furthermore, if a load balancer is utilized, the test manager 110 can also store the generated mapping on the load balancer. In additional or alternative embodiments, the test manager 110 can also distribute the generated mapping to web servers in different “data centers” that serve different geographical regions (e.g., in order to maintain a web site if an entire data center goes offline or in case a visitor travels to a different geographic location, etc.). By storing the generated mapping on each of the one or more web servers hosting the website, the test manager 110 eliminates the need to constantly update mirrored visitor databases… Also shown in FIG. 2, the web server 108 includes the test manager 110. In one or more embodiments, the web server 108 functions for a variety of purposes. For example, one or more embodiments described herein utilize the web server 108 for hosting and serving data representative of one or more web pages within a website. In additional or alternative embodiments, the web server 108 can also function as a file server or other type of data server. In one or more embodiments, the web server 108 is representative of a network of servers interconnected for the purpose of supporting a website. For example, in at least one embodiment, the test management system 100 includes multiple networked servers that collectively host a single website. In that case, each networked server may host all or a portion of the website. A load balancer may be employed to ensure that no one server receives an excessive number of web page requests).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Joel/Givoni/Hassan with the teachings of Kucera in order to have the computer-implemented method is executed by a plurality of edge devices; and each edge device of the distributed edge computing system serves a population of users with its own variant version of the HTML webpage. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of A/B testing of webpages amongst multiple computing devices. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Joel/Givoni/Hassan/Kucera teaches the limitations of Claim 10 which state
receiving, at a first edge device serving a first population in the edge computing system, a first metric from the client device which indicates the variant version of the HTML webpage has reached a benchmark for performance; and transmitting, from the first edge device, the variant version of the HTML webpage to a second edge device serving a second population; and transmitting, from the second edge device, the variant version of the HTML webpage to a second client device (Givoni: Para 0035-0039 via Content management system 100 then may perform real-time content replacement for testing the variants 136. Content management (CM) agents 152 may be embedded into original webpages 104 and may operate in conjunction with content manager 148. CM agents 152 and content manager 148 determine what variants 136 are displayed to users 150 within webpages 104. In one example, CM agent 152 may comprise Java script, Adobe Flash, or Microsoft Silverlight. User 150 may download original webpage 104 from website 103 into web browser 144. Webpage 104 may be embedded with CM agent 152. CM agent 152 may send a notification 176 to content manager 148 identifying webpage 104. Notification 176 also may provide other parameters 178 needed by content manager 148 to determine what variants 136, if any, to send back to CM agent 152. For example, parameters 178 may provide additional information regarding user 150 and may be compared with criteria 138. In another example, CM agent 152 may compare parameters 178 with local criteria 154 to determine when to send notification 176 to content manager 148 and/or determine which variants 136 to display in webpage 104. Based on the criteria 138, content manager 148 may send variants 136 back to CM agent 152. CM agent 152 then may dynamically replace original element 128 in webpage 104 with the variants 136 received from content manger 148. CM agent 152 may turn off the visibility of webpage 104 in web browser 144 until replacement HTML code in variant 136 is received from content server 170. CM agent 152 replaces HTML code for original element 128 with the HTML code for variant 136 and then turns the visibility of now modified webpage 104A back on in web browser 144. For example, variant 136 may comprise the red icon created by operator 110 in user interface 122 and uploaded to content server 170. CM agent 152 replaces the green icon in original element 128 with the red icon in variant 136 and renders modified webpage 104A to user 150 in web browser 144. Thus, user 150 will see the red icon associated with variant 136 without operator 110 having to change original webpage 104 in website 103. Different variants 136 may be used for the same webpage 104 based on criteria 154 and criteria 138. For example, operator 110 may have created a first variant 136 and a second variant 136 for element 128. As explained above, element 128 may be a green icon and the first variant 136 may comprise a red icon. The second variant 136 may comprise a green icon. Operator 110 may have created first criteria 138 for the first variant 136 specifying a first time period and created second criteria 138 for the second variant 136 specifying a second time period).
Regarding Claim 12, while Joel/Givoni/Hassan teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 12 which state wherein receiving from the origin server a first version of the HTML webpage comprises receiving a different first version of the HTML webpage transmitted to the origin server from another edge server.
Kucera though, with the teachings of Joel/Givoni/Hassan teaches of
wherein receiving from the origin server a first version of the HTML webpage comprises receiving a different first version of the HTML webpage transmitted to the origin server from another edge server (Kucera: Para 0026, 0038 via Furthermore, the test management system 100 is described herein with reference to A/B testing between different versions of a web page. In additional embodiments, the test management system 100 can be utilized in A/B testing between different algorithms for choosing a web page version or generating a web page version. For example, the test management system 100 can manage an A/B test between a first algorithm that selects a test version of a web page, and a second algorithm that personalizes the contents of the web page to a visitor. Thus, using the example above, the test management system 100 can use a first algorithm for choosing what to show visitors on a web page (e.g., such as which products, advertisements, videos) having mapping identifiers of 1-300. The test management system 100 can use a second algorithm for choosing what to show visitors on a web page (e.g., such as which products, advertisements, videos having mapping identifiers 301-600. The test management system 100 can use a third algorithm for choosing what to show visitors on a web page (e.g., such as which products, advertisements, videos having mapping identifiers 601-1000. Thus, as used herein a “test web page” or “test page” refers to one of a plurality of previously generated pages, a page generated on the fly for a particular visitor using one of a plurality of personalization algorithms, or a default web page with one of a plurality of different advertisements or other content items… Once the test manager 110 has generated a token associated with the client-computing device 102, the test manager 110 next identifies a test version of the requested web page that corresponds with generated token in the mapping (120). As described above, the mapping associates ranges of mapping identifiers to test versions of an A/B tested web page. For example, in the case of random twelve digit numbers. The mapping can establish that a certain number of the twelve digits will be used for a particular A/B test, such as the last 3 digits, will be used as mapping identifiers. Based on the number of test pages and desired percentages of user to see each test page, the mapping can link ranges of mapping identifiers to test pages. For example, the mapping can indicate that mapping identifiers from 000 to 249 will be shown a first test page, mapping identifiers from 250 to 499 will be shown a second test page, mapping identifiers from 500-749 will be shown a third test page, and mapping identifiers from 750-999 will be shown a fourth test page. Accordingly, in one or more embodiments, the test manager 110 identifies the appropriate test version of the requested web page (120) by determining which mapping identifier in the mapping is associated with the generated token, and identifying the test version in the mapping that corresponds with that mapping identifier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Joel/Givoni/Hassan with the teachings of Kucera in order to have wherein receiving from the origin server a first version of the HTML webpage comprises receiving a different first version of the HTML webpage transmitted to the origin server from another edge server. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of A/B testing of webpages amongst multiple computing devices. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, they are analogous to Claims 9 and 12 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joel et al. (US 8,285,808 B1) in view of Givoni (US 2015/0007064 A1) in view of Hassan (US 10,248,628 B2) further in view of Cordasco (US 2012/0151329 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, while Joel/Givoni/Hassan teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 6 which state wherein the tracking the metric of the first version of the HTML webpage includes tracking the average time spent on the page of a plurality of users of the HTML webpage.
Cordasco though, with the teachings of Joel/Givoni/Hassan teaches of
wherein the tracking the metric of the first version of the HTML webpage includes tracking the average time spent on the page of a plurality of users of the HTML webpage (Cordasco: Para 0075 via FIG. 9 depicts an example of a text management panel 360 for controlling variant tests. A section 362 may display different averages for the website. For example, section 362 may identify a total number of visitors to the website over some period of time, an average number of webpages viewed over the time period, an average bounce rate, an average time each user spent on the website, and an average number of webpages visited by the users. Of course, any other test data can also be displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Joel/Givoni/Hassan with the teachings of Cordasco in order to have wherein the tracking the metric of the first version of the HTML webpage includes tracking the average time spent on the page of a plurality of users of the HTML webpage. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of compiling metrics on website performance. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dereszynski et al. (US 10,169,221 B2)
Xu et al. (US 2016/0253697 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE E SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1684. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/T.E.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625