Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action is responsive to Applicant’s application filed 09/04/2025. Claims 1-3, 10, and 15-18 have been amended. Claims 1-22 are pending in this office action
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments with respect to amended features in claim, 1 and 13-14 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argued that, Claim 1 recites "obtaining activity data including weblog data of a plurality of user devices”. Nowhere describes systematic collection of weblog data from web servers across multiple user devices or user identifiers (Argument page 7). Examiner respect disagreed.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Kamdar teaches websites may be created using HyperText Markup Language (HTML) to generate a standard set of tags that define how the web pages for the website are to be displayed. Users of the Internet may access content providers' websites using software known as an Internet browser. After the browser has located the desired webpage, the browser requests and receives information from the webpage, typically in the form of an HTML document, and then displays the webpage content for the user. The user then may view other web pages at the same website or move to an entirely different website using the browser (e.g., weblog data). (paragraphs 0007, 0010-0012). A method of displaying candidate domain names for registration by a user, the method being performed by at least one server (e.g., web servers) communicatively coupled to a network (paragraphs 0043-0044).The weblog data (e.g., Social Media X Blog in table 1) (paragraphs 0172-0173).
“multiple user devices or user identifiers” claim limitation are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Terminal Disclaimer
4. The Terminal Disclaimer filed on 09/04/2025 has been reviewed and is approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
5. Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kamdar et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0106234 A1, hereinafter “Kamdar”) in view of Hampson et al. (US Patent No. 10,229,164 B1, hereinafter “Hampson”).
As to Claim 1, Kamdar teaches the claimed limitations:
“A method, comprising:” as a method performed by at least one server communicatively coupled to a network (paragraph 0040).
“obtaining activity data including weblog data of a plurality of user devices corresponding to a plurality of user identifiers, the weblog data obtained from a plurality of sources including a plurality of web servers” as websites may be created using HyperText Markup Language (HTML) to generate a standard set of tags that define how the web pages for the website are to be displayed. Users of the Internet may access content providers' websites using software known as an Internet browser. After the browser has located the desired webpage, the browser requests and receives information from the webpage, typically in the form of an HTML document, and then displays the webpage content for the user. The user then may view other web pages at the same website or move to an entirely different website using the browser (e.g., weblog data). (paragraphs 0007, 0010-0012). The weblog data (e.g., Social Media X Blog in table 1) (paragraphs 0172-0173). The method includes receiving from a user input data including one or more search terms, obtaining a plurality of candidate domain names relevant to the input data, and arranging the plurality of candidate domain names into one or more sets such that each of the sets contains at least one of the candidate domain names. Each of the sets has a relevance score relative to one or both of the search terms and the user (paragraph 0040). The method obtaining a web page that includes a user interface; receiving, from a user via a user device in electronic communication with the computer network, a user query including input data; and presenting, to the user via the user device, the web page (paragraph 0043). A method of displaying candidate domain names for registration by a user, the method being performed by at least one server (e.g., web servers) communicatively coupled to a network (paragraph 0044).The domain name generation module may comprise an information source receipt module and a keyword extraction and combination module. The information source receipt module may comprise scripts and/or software running on the server that operates to obtain a plurality of data from any information source (paragraph 0115). The keyword identifier provides synonymous or similar keywords to those of the input data and invites the user to emphasize and de-emphasize keywords the system may use in its theme selection and candidate domain name generation (paragraphs 0168, 0172-0173).
“obtaining device data associated with the plurality of user devices” as (paragraphs 0043).
“analyzing the activity data and device data associated with the plurality of user devices to generate a set of user identifier keywords for each of the user devices” as the system provides an integration module to generate a keyword collection by running a content analysis on the website being built by the user that identifies keywords throughout the pages of the website. The keyword collection may contain keywords related to the user acquired keywords selected from title text on the user's website, and information collected from third party sources about the user or the user's business. A cache storage database may be provided by the system to store the input data provided by the user and to store data related to the user acquired from the third party data sources. The keywords generated will be used to generate a candidate domain name for the user (paragraphs 0060, 0072-0073, 0082, 0090, 0118, 0126, 0168, 0179).
“stack ranking the plurality of user identifiers according to the corresponding sets of user identifier keywords, wherein the activity data is continuously analyzed to update the stack ranking of the user identifiers” as the system may be configured to dynamically generate themed domain name bundles based on relevance to the domain name or keywords entered by the user, or to a domain name suggested by the system in response to the domain name search and selected by the user, if the user picks a suggested domain name, the system may be configured to analyze one or both of the user query and the selected domain name to identify what the user selected, and perhaps what the user intended to purchase. Such analysis may include identifying relevant pre-stored themes, if the system suggests and the user selects a domain name with a TLD that is a synonym of an input keyword, the system may identify a keyword synonym theme as relevant to the user, if the user selects a suggested domain name below a certain price point, the system may identify a value theme for lower cost domain names. The system may rank the identified theme higher than other themes (abstract, paragraph 0126). Additional information interactions and displayed in the interface may include a keyword button that displays a keyword assistant. The keyword identifier provides synonymous or similar keywords to those of the input data and invites the user to emphasize and de-emphasize keywords the system may use in its theme selection and candidate domain name generation. Navigation may be organized into one or both of a top navigation bar and a bottom navigation bar. Example navigation options include changing display configurations and applying filters. Another option is favoriting one or more stacks or one or more domain tiles which may save the favorited results in a list for later review. Furthermore, favoriting may increase the relevance score of one or both of the set and the candidate domain name. Referring to the header tile of one or more stacks may include further additional information, such as domain name advice that educates the user regarding selecting proper domain names. The system may produce such domain name advice by retrieving it from an internal or otherwise accessible database (paragraphs 0163, 0165, 0168; see also figures 18-19).
“categorizing the plurality of user identifiers according to the stack ranking wherein at least a subset of the plurality of user identifiers are assigned to one or more categories” as
the input data includes one or more search terms. Each set may have a theme determining which of the candidate name assets belong to the set. The theme of one or more of the sets may correspond to one or more of a domain name characteristics, a website characteristic, and a user characteristic. The domain name characteristic may be an availability for purchase, a common TLD or gTLD, a synonymous TLD or gTLD, an international designation, a character length, a spelling variation, or a common keyword. The website characteristic may be a category, a business vertical, a type of content, a keyword, or a keyword frequency (paragraphs 0046, 0068, 0088). The keyword extraction and combination module may comprise software and/or scripts running on the server and may operate to parse received data into a plurality of keywords, combine keywords into a root name. The keyword extraction and combination module also may determine a topic to which each keyword relates, sort the keywords into subcategories according to topic, and generate a root name by combining keywords from the same subcategory (paragraphs 0116, 0118). For example, if the selected domain name for purchase is mycookingchannel.com, the system can identify the dominant themes as food, television, and personal, and a bundle of one or more candidate domain names may be created for the relevance bundle. The candidate domain names name include mycookingchannel.food (category=food), mycookingchannel.menu (category=food), mycookingchannel.recipe (category=food), menu.mycookingchannel.com (category=food), mycookingchannel.tv (category=tv), mycookingchannel.me (category=personal) (paragraph 0134). The keyword identifier provides synonymous or similar keywords to those of the input data and invites the user to emphasize and de-emphasize keywords the system may use in its theme selection and candidate domain name generation (paragraphs 0168, 0172-0173).
Kamdar does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation “obtaining activity data including a plurality of user identifiers, the weblog data; stack ranking the plurality of user identifiers according to the corresponding sets of user identifier keywords”.
Hampson teaches generating a relevancy score (e.g., rank) for each of the plurality of keyword clusters over a plurality of time periods relative to the event includes determining, from historical data, performance of content associated with the keyword cluster across each of a plurality of time periods relative to events similar (e.g., activity pattern) to the event associated with the device identifier (column 2, lines 12-18). A conceptual illustration of a calendar entry of an event, the event can be created as a calendar entry by a user, the event can be automatically generated from a mail application or other application capable of identifying an event from contents. In some implementations, the event can be associated with a user profile or identifier associated with the user or device of the user. The event can be created as a calendar entry of a calendar associated with user profile or identifier associated with the user or device of the user (column 16, lines 25-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kamdar, and Hampson, before him/her, to modify Kamdar ranking the plurality of user identifiers according to the corresponding sets of user identifier keywords because that would provide a smart television module may be configured to allow users to search and find videos, movies, photos and other content on the web as taught by Hampson (column 47, lines 37-67).
As to Claim 4, Kamdar teaches the claimed limitations:
“transmitting content to devices associated with the subset of the plurality of user identifiers assigned to the categories” as (paragraphs 0104-0105).
As to Claim 6, Kamdar teaches the claimed limitations:
“each set of user identifier keywords having one or more dimensions, wherein the plurality of user identifiers are further stack ranked according to the dimensions” as (abstract, paragraph 0126-0163, 0165, 0168; see also figures 18-19).
As to Claim 7, Kamdar teaches the claimed limitations:
“the device data comprising one or more of: device model, device age, or device price range” as (paragraphs 0126, 0129-0132, 0137-0138, 0144-0146, 0161-0163).
As to Claim 8, Kamdar teaches the claimed limitations:
“wherein analyzing the activity data comprises: evaluating syllable count and N gram word combinations of the weblog data” as (paragraphs 0046, 0118, 0126, 0134-0135, 0138-0139).
As to Claim 9, Kamdar teaches the claimed limitations:
“scraping content associated with a plurality of page uniform resource locators (URLs); analyzing the content to determine a plurality of page URL keywords within the content; and ranking the plurality of page URLs according to the plurality of page URL keywords” as (paragraphs 0046, 0088, 0118, 0141, 0176-0178).
As to claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a), the limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 1. In addition, Kamdar teaches methods may be performed by any central processing unit in any computing system, such as a microprocessor running on at least one server and/or client, and executing instructions stored in computer-readable media accessible to the CPU, such as a hard disk drive on a server (paragraph 0094). Therefore, this claim is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
As to claims 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a), the limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claims 6-8. In addition, Kamdar teaches methods may be performed by any central processing unit in any computing system, such as a microprocessor running on at least one server and/or client, and executing instructions stored in computer-readable media accessible to the CPU, such as a hard disk drive on a server (paragraph 0094). Therefore, these claims are rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 6-8.
As to claims 15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a), the limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claims 1, and 6-7. In addition, Kamdar teaches methods may be performed by any central processing unit in any computing system, such as a microprocessor running on at least one server and/or client, and executing instructions stored in computer-readable media accessible to the CPU, such as a hard disk drive on a server (paragraph 0094). Therefore, these claims are rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 1, and 6-7.
6. Claims 2-3, 5, 11, 16, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kamdar et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0106234 A1) in view of Hampson et al. (US Patent No. 10,229,164 B1) and Tangari et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2024/0062021 A1, hereinafter “Tangari”).
As to Claim 2, Kamdar does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation “collecting the device data from one or more data sources; processing data including the collected device data to generate financial capacity metrics for a plurality of individuals, wherein the collected device data contributes to an estimation of a first individual's financial capacity, the estimation based on the assumption that certain device characteristics correlate with higher financial capacity; and assigning financial capacity scores to the plurality of individuals based on an analysis of the device data, thereby providing a proxy measure of the plurality of individuals' economic standing”.
Tangari teaches (abstract, paragraphs 0031-0035, 0074, 0117, 0120, 0141-0142, 0157-0160).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kamdar, Hampson and Tangari before him/her, to modify Kamdar ranking the plurality of user identifiers according to the corresponding sets of user identifier keywords because that would provide a smart television module may be configured to allow users to search and find videos, movies, photos and other content on the web as taught by Hampson (column 47, lines 37-67). Or collected device data to generate financial capacity metrics for individuals because that would provide users with a means to interact with these relational databases in an intuitive way without requiring knowledge of a database management language as taught by Tangari (paragraph 0006).
As to Claim 3, Kamdar does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation “expanding the evaluation of the device data to include analysis of traffic data from one or more sources to assess personal characteristics including financial literacy, intellectual complexity, healthy habits, and hobbies; collecting and processing traffic data to extract patterns and behaviors indicative of these characteristics, wherein interactions with specific types of content are used as indicators of the respective personal characteristic; and assigning relevance scores to these behaviors based on analysis of the traffic data, thereby constructing a comprehensive profile that reflects a first individual's financial literacy, intellectual pursuits, health consciousness, and personal interests to provide a nuanced understanding of the first individual's personal character”.
Tangari teaches (abstract, paragraphs 0031, 0117, 0120, 0179, 0221).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kamdar, Hampson and Tangari before him/her, to modify Kamdar ranking the plurality of user identifiers according to the corresponding sets of user identifier keywords because that would provide a smart television module may be configured to allow users to search and find videos, movies, photos and other content on the web as taught by Hampson (column 47, lines 37-67). Or expanding the evaluation of the device data to include analysis of traffic data because that would provide users with a means to interact with these relational databases in an intuitive way without requiring knowledge of a database management language as taught by Tangari (paragraph 0006).
As to Claim 5, Kamdar does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation “each set of user identifier keywords including one or more of: income level keyword, credit worthiness keyword, or intellectual capacity keyword”.
Tangari teaches (paragraphs 0074, 0093).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kamdar, Hampson and Tangari before him/her, to modify Kamdar ranking the plurality of user identifiers according to the corresponding sets of user identifier keywords because that would provide a smart television module may be configured to allow users to search and find videos, movies, photos and other content on the web as taught by Hampson (column 47, lines 37-67). Or credit worthiness keyword because that would provide users with a means to interact with these relational databases in an intuitive way without requiring knowledge of a database management language as taught by Tangari (paragraph 0006).
As to claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a), the limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 2. In addition, Kamdar teaches methods may be performed by any central processing unit in any computing system, such as a microprocessor running on at least one server and/or client, and executing instructions stored in computer-readable media accessible to the CPU, such as a hard disk drive on a server (paragraph 0094). Therefore, this claim is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 2.
As to claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a), the limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 2. In addition, Kamdar teaches methods may be performed by any central processing unit in any computing system, such as a microprocessor running on at least one server and/or client, and executing instructions stored in computer-readable media accessible to the CPU, such as a hard disk drive on a server (paragraph 0094). Therefore, this claim is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 2.
As to Claim 19, Kamdar teaches the claimed limitations:
“A method, comprising:” as a method performed by at least one server communicatively coupled to a network (paragraph 0040).
“collecting data indicating device attributes associated with a plurality of devices from one or more data sources, the device attributes including one or more of:” as metadata may include user preferences (paragraphs 0129, 0170).
“device model, device manufacturer, or device age” as (paragraphs 0102-0108).
Kamdar does not explicitly teach the claimed limitation “processing the collected data to generate financial capacity metrics for individuals associated with the plurality of devices” as assigning the financial capacity metrics to the individuals”.
Tangari teaches (paragraphs 0031, 0179, 0221).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kamdar, Hampson and Tangari before him/her, to modify Kamdar ranking the plurality of user identifiers according to the corresponding sets of user identifier keywords because that would provide a smart television module may be configured to allow users to search and find videos, movies, photos and other content on the web as taught by Hampson (column 47, lines 37-67). Or generate financial capacity metrics because that would provide users with a means to interact with these relational databases in an intuitive way without requiring knowledge of a database management language as taught by Tangari (paragraph 0006).
As to Claim 20, Kamdar teaches the claimed limitations:
“obtaining activity data including weblog data of a plurality of user devices corresponding to a plurality of user identifiers, the weblog data obtained from a plurality of sources including a plurality of web servers; wherein generating the financial capacity metrics is further based on the activity data” as (paragraphs 0043, 0046, 0052, 0172).
Tangari teaches (paragraphs 0031, 0179, 0221).
As to Claim 21, Kamdar teaches the claimed limitations:
“the data sources including at least one database” as paragraphs 0012, 0052).
As to Claim 22, Kamdar teaches the claimed limitations:
“the device attributes including device manufacturer and device model” as (paragraphs 0111, 0117).
Tangari teaches (paragraphs 0102-0108, 0129, 0170).
Conclusion
7. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in 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.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Hwa whose telephone number is 571-270-1285 or email address: james.hwa@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 am – 5:30 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ajay Bhatia can be reached on 571-272-3906. 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 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.
12/9/2025
/SHYUE JIUNN HWA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156