DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 4/26/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 12, and 18 are independent claims.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Replace each occurrence of “call to action prompt” with “call-to-action prompt”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 12, 13, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2, 13, and 19, replace each occurrence of “call to action prompt” with “call-to-action prompt”
Claim 12, line 1, replace … adaptation, comprising … with … adaptation, the method comprising …
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 12, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SRI et al., US PGPUB 2017 /0154495 Al (hereinafter as SRI).
Regarding independent claim 1, SRI discloses a system for contextual and dynamic web content adaptation [see figs. 1 and 15; note dynamic web content adaptation in figs. 8-10 and related description], the system comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories [note the memories and processor indicated in [0092] and shown on fig. 15], configured to:
obtain behavior information that indicates one or more user interactions with web content presented on a user device [note in [0051]-[[0052] receiving behavior information (related to a current journey of a user) indicating user interaction with a website; note e.g. the options selected, mouse movements, clicked linked, time spent, touch events, focus and non-docus-events, chats, etc.; see also [0077]];
generate, using an artificial intelligence or machine learning model, one or more predictions associated with the web content based on the behavior information, wherein the one or more predictions include a predicted intent associated with the one or more user interactions with the web content [note in [0055]-[0056] predicting the intention of the user using information received related to the current journey of the user; note the use of machine learning models; see also [0063]];
identify, based on the behavior information, a current user engagement level with the web content presented on the user device [see step 1304 of fig. 13 and note categorizing the user (regarding his/her engagement and interaction) as one of a hot lead, a warm lead and a non-hot lead) based on the received behavior information; note from [0050] tracking user activity for categorization];
generate an adapted version of the web content based on the one or more predictions and the current user engagement level; and deliver the adapted version of the web content to the user device for presentation on the user device in accordance with the current user engagement level [note e.g. in [0059] the modification of the UI being displayed to facilitate user engagement and note that the modification is based on the categorization of the level of user engagement which is related to the prediction of intent and interest; see also [0063] and step 1306 of fig. 13; see exemplary adapted version of the webpage in figs. 8-10].
Regarding independent claim 12, SRI discloses a method for contextual and dynamic web content adaptation [see the method in [0010]; note dynamic web content adaptation in figs. 8-10 and related description], the method comprising:
predicting, by a system [see figs. 1 and 15], a user intent associated with behavior information that indicates one or more user interactions with web content presented on a user device [note in [0055]-[0056] predicting the intention of the user using information received related to a current journey of the user; note in [0051]-[[0052] receiving behavior information (related to a current journey of a user) indicating user interaction with a website; see also [0063] and [0077]];
identifying, by the system, a current user engagement level with the web content presented on the user device based on the behavior information [see step 1304 of fig. 13 and note categorizing the user (regarding his/her engagement and interaction) as one of a hot lead, a warm lead and a non-hot lead) based on the received behavior information; note from [0050] tracking user activity for categorization];
generating, by the system, an adapted version of the web content based on the one or more predictions and the current user engagement level; and delivering, by the system, the adapted version of the web content to the user device for presentation on the user device in accordance with the current user engagement level [note e.g. in [0059] the modification of the UI being displayed to facilitate user engagement and note that the modification is based on the categorization of the level of user engagement which is related to the prediction of intent and interest; see also [0063] and step 1306 of fig. 13; see exemplary adapted version of the webpage in figs. 8-10].
Regarding independent claim 18, SRI discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a system [see e.g. [0097] and 1516 in fig. 15], cause the system to:
obtain behavior information that indicates one or more user interactions with web content presented on a user device [note in [0051]-[[0052] receiving behavior information (related to a current journey of a user) indicating user interaction with a website; note e.g. the options selected, mouse movements, clicked linked, time spent, touch events, focus and non-docus-events, chats, etc.; see also [0077] and step 1302 of fig. 13];
identify, based on the behavior information, a current user engagement level with the web content presented on the user device [see step 1304 of fig. 13 and note categorizing the user (regarding his/her engagement and interaction) as one of a hot lead, a warm lead and a non-hot lead) based on the received behavior information; note from [0050] tracking user activity for categorization];
generate an adapted version of the web content based on the current user engagement level; and deliver the adapted version of the web content to the user device for presentation on the user device in accordance with the current user engagement level [note e.g. in [0059] the modification of the UI being displayed to facilitate user engagement and note that the modification is based on the categorization of the level of user engagement and interaction; see also [0063] and step 1306 of fig. 13; see exemplary adapted version of the webpage in figs. 8-10].
Regarding claims 2 and 19, the rejection of claims 1 and 18 are respectively incorporated. SRI further discloses that the adapted version of the web content includes a visual emphasis on an incomplete call-to-action prompt (based on the predicted intent indicating a probable user interest in the incomplete call to action prompt) [note in [0071] the prompt/widget 1002 requesting the user to take part in an interactive quiz as shown in the modified UI in fig. 10; note that the modified UI including the widget us based on a categorization of the user based on a predicted intent].
Regarding claims 3 and 20, the rejection of claims 1 and 18 are respectively incorporated. SRI further discloses that the adapted version of the web content includes a set of content elements summarizing the one or more user interactions with the web content [note in [0063] the adapted UI 800 shown in fig. 8 showing a summary of attributes 804 based on the user interactions selecting links or clicking images of mobile phones having a particular related attribute].
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. SRI further discloses that the adapted version of the web content includes one or more of a set of content elements summarizing the one or more user interactions with the web content [note in [0063] the adapted UI 800 shown in fig. 8 showing a summary of attributes 804 based on the user interactions selecting links or clicking images of mobile phones having a particular related attribute] or a visual emphasis on an incomplete call-to-action prompt [note in [0071] the prompt/widget 1002 requesting the user to take part in an interactive quiz as shown in the modified UI in fig. 10].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 5, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SRI in view of Urban et al., US Patent No. 10,082,945 B2 (hereinafter as Urban).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the rejection of claims 1 and 12 are respectively incorporated. SRI does not explicitly teach that the adapted version of the web content is generated and delivered to the user device for presentation on the user device at a time when the current user engagement level indicates that all of the web content has been viewed.
Urban teaches an adapted version of web content that is generated and delivered to a user device for presentation on the user device at a time when a current user engagement level indicates that all of the web content has been viewed [note e.g. col. 15, line 66-col. 16, line 3 and col. 16, lines 11-13 indicating the display of 408 responsive to an exit action that indicates that the user has completed reading the content 400 on the webpage; see fig. 2C].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the SRI and Urban before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SRI’s generation of an adapted version of the web content by explicitly specifying that the adapted version of the web content is generated and delivered to the user device for presentation on the user device at a time when the current user engagement level indicates that all of the web content has been viewed, as per the teachings of Urban. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to facilitate re-engaging a user with a website when as exit intent is determined, as suggested by Urban [see e.g. col. 4, lines 6-10].
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the rejection of claims 1 and 12 are respectively incorporated. SRI does not explicitly teach that the adapted version of the web content is generated and delivered to the user device for presentation on the user device at a time when the current user engagement level indicates that a user is likely to close or cease interacting with the web content.
Urban teaches an adapted version of web content that is generated and delivered to a user device for presentation on the user device at a time when a current user engagement level indicates that a user is likely to close or cease interacting with the web content [note e.g. in fig. 1A the display of a message based on a determination of intent (via user input) to exit a displayed webpage].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the SRI and Urban before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SRI’s generation of an adapted version of the web content by explicitly specifying that the adapted version of the web content is generated and delivered to the user device for presentation on the user device at a time when the current user engagement level indicates that a user is likely to close or cease interacting with the web content, as per the teachings of Urban. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to facilitate re-engaging a user with a website when as exit intent is determined, as suggested by Urban [see e.g. col. 4, lines 6-10].
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SRI in view of Bayen et al., US Patent No. 10,404,815 B2 (hereinafter as Bayen).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the rejection of claims 1 and 12 are respectively incorporated. SRI does not explicitly teach that the adapted version of the web content is generated and delivered to the user device for presentation on the user device at a time when the current user engagement level indicates an inactive status within an active browser tab.
Bayen teaches an adapted version of web content that is generated and delivered to a user device for presentation on the user device at a time when a current user engagement level indicates an inactive status within an active browser tab [note e.g. col. 8, lines 51-57 indicating user inactivity; note the use of tabs in col. 4, lines 66-67; note in col. 9, lines 55-67 the response triggering event of displaying a message box or window in front of a website].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the SRI and Bayen before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SRI’s generation of an adapted version of the web content by explicitly specifying that the adapted version of the web content is generated and delivered to the user device for presentation on the user device at a time when the current user engagement level indicates that an inactive status within an active browser tab, as per the teachings of Bayen. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable better monitoring of user engagement and attention to a website which would facilitate optimizing the operation of the website for the benefit of users, as suggested by Bayen [see e.g. col. 1, lines 6-8 and 27-29].
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the rejection of claims 1 and 12 are respectively incorporated. SRI does not explicitly teach that the adapted version of the web content is generated and delivered to the user device for presentation on the user device at a time when the current user engagement level indicates a return to an active status within a previously inactive browser tab.
Bayen teaches an adapted version of web content that is generated and delivered to a user device for presentation on the user device at a time when a current user engagement level indicates a return to an active status within a previously inactive browser tab [note e.g. col. 4, line 67-col. 5, line 2 indicating a focus event that constitutes the activation of a non-active tab; note in col. 9, lines 55-67 the response triggering event of displaying a message box or window in front of a website].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the SRI and Bayen before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SRI’s generation of an adapted version of the web content by explicitly specifying that the adapted version of the web content is generated and delivered to the user device for presentation on the user device at a time when the current user engagement level indicates a return to an active status within a previously inactive browser tab, as per the teachings of Bayen. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable better monitoring of user engagement and attention to a website which would facilitate optimizing the operation of the website for the benefit of users, as suggested by Bayen [see e.g. col. 1, lines 6-8 and 27-29].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SRI in view of Hui et al., US Patent No. 10,777164 B2 (hereinafter as Hui).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. SRI does not explicitly teach that the adapted version of the web content has a data footprint that is based on one or more memory constraints.
Hui teaches an adapted version of web content that has a data footprint that is based on one or more memory constraints [note e.g. from col. 6, lines 33-37 and col. 8, lines 66-col. 9, line 8 the adaptation of a version of web content with a modified tile rendering policy that has a data footprint that is based on a reduced memory usage].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the SRI and Ellis before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adapted version of the web content in SRI’s system for contextual and dynamic web adaptation by explicitly specifying that this adapted version of the web content has a data footprint that is based on one or more memory constraints, as per the teachings of Hui. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable reducing power and memory consumption while improving page loading performance thus providing a better user experience in web browsing in a variety of devices, as suggested by Hui [see e.g. col. 9, lines 7-21].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SRI in view of Ellis et al., US PGPUB 2014/0208202 Al (hereinafter as Ellis).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. SRI does not explicitly teach that the adapted version of the web content is associated with one or more rendering parameters based on a display technology associated with the user device.
Ellis teaches an adapted version of web content that is associated with one or more rendering parameters based on a display technology associated with a presenting user device [note e.g. [0018] and [0029] indicating conversion of a web page to be displayed on a requesting device based on the resources of the device (whether substantial or constrained); note in [0019] the limited display size as an exemplary display constraint associated with a mobile device; see other display parameters listed in [0006]; note the examples of different web page versions adapted for devices with different display capabilities in figs. 6 and 7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the SRI and Ellis before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adapted version of the web content in SRI’s system for contextual and dynamic web adaptation by explicitly specifying that this adapted version of the web content is associated with one or more rendering parameters based on a display technology associated with the user device, as per the teachings of Ellis. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable efficiently and effectively adapting to the different operational constraints of any requesting device thus accommodating various requests for web content display, as suggested by Ellis [see e.g. [0003] and [0006]].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SRI in view of Solano, US PGPUB 2021/0357465 Al (hereinafter as Solano).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. SRI does not explicitly teach that the adapted version of the web content is delivered to the user device via a content delivery network that caches the adapted version of the web content at a first location in proximity to a second location of the user device.
Solano teaches a version of web content that is delivered to a requesting user device via a content delivery network that caches the version of the web content at a first location in proximity to a second location of the user device [note e.g. [0021] indicating the delivery of a version of web content to a requesting device via a content delivery network that caches the content at a location that is geographically in proximity to the requesting location].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the SRI and Solano before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SRI’s system for contextual and dynamic web adaptation by explicitly specifying that the adapted version of the web content is delivered to the user device via a content delivery network that caches the adapted version of the web content at a first location in proximity to a second location of the user device, as per the teachings of Solano. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable faster delivery, as suggested by Solano [see e.g. [0021]].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SRI in view of Merritt, US Patent No. 11,392,664 Bl (hereinafter as Merritt).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. SRI does not explicitly teach obtaining feedback related to one or more post-adaptation user interactions with one or more of the web content or the adapted version of the web content; and refining one or more algorithms used to generate the one or more predictions, identify the current user engagement level, or generate the adapted version of the web content in accordance with the feedback related to one or more post-adaptation user interactions.
Merritt teaches obtaining feedback related to one or more post-adaptation user interactions with one or more of web content or an adapted version of the web content; and refining one or more algorithms used to generate one or more predictions, identify current user engagement level, or generate the adapted version of the web content in accordance with the feedback related to one or more post-adaptation user interactions [note e.g. fig. 2; especially note the last 3 steps and the related description indicating the monitoring of user reactions after dynamically displaying a modified web page (obtaining feedback related to post-adaptation interactions) and updating the prediction models that are used to generate predictions].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the SRI and Merritt before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SRI’s system for contextual and dynamic web adaptation by explicitly specifying obtaining feedback related to one or more post-adaptation user interactions with one or more of the web content or the adapted version of the web content; and refining one or more algorithms used to generate the one or more predictions, identify the current user engagement level, or generate the adapted version of the web content in accordance with the feedback related to one or more post-adaptation user interactions, as per the teachings of Merritt. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to facilitate dynamically following the user behavior predictions in real-time and to enable the updated prediction model better reflect the trend of web user behaviors and continually improve the prediction accuracy, as suggested by Merritt [see e.g. col. 4, lines 24-28 and col. 11, lines 45-50].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner notes from the cited art, Sweeney et al., US PGPUB 2019/0286756 A1, which teaches website changes based on engagement level [see e.g. [0036] and fig. 2].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, EST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172