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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is a Final action on the merits in response to communications filed on 03/21/2026.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8 and 15-21 have been amended. Claims 2, 3, 7, 9 and 10 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4-6, 8 and 11-21 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to overcome the Claim Objection set forth in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pgs. 9-10 , filed 03/21/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Under Step 2A, Prong 2 the claims as a whole integrate the claims into a practical application. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 12, filed 03/21/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection(s) related to Nickerson et al. has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ouyang (US 2019/0385219).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ouyang (US 2019/0385219).
Claim 1:
Ouyang discloses:
A computation device comprising: at least one processor and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the device to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising:
computing an importance level that is an index indicating how much importance a user who intends to purchase a product that places on human information and thing information by using an operation log of a web page and human thing information, (see at least ¶0016, affinity score is composed of components such as a current activity value, historical scoring value and a predicted scoring value which are produced from measurements of customer activities with individual products, groups of products, categories and product brands; see also ¶0028, level of interest)
wherein the human information is information regarding a user who sells a product, and the thing information is information regarding a product, and the human thing information is information indicating whether each piece of content on the web page is the human information or the thing information, (see at least ¶0016, affinity score is composed of components such as a current activity value, historical scoring value and a predicted scoring value which are produced from measurements of customer activities with individual products, groups of products, categories and product brands; see also ¶0028, level of interest; see also ¶0033-¶0025, streaming events captured from user interface include product, product type, brand, characteristics, specifications, reviews and features )
calculating, by using the operation log, the human thing information, and the importance level, enrichment including thing information enrichment indicating whether the thing information on the web page is enriched and human information enrichment indicating whether the human information on the web page is enriched, and (see at least ¶0035, affinity score provides a cumulative ongoing score that can be updated as new events are generated; see also ¶0076, updating and maintenance of affinity score include history score, future score and current user activity; see also ¶0017)
customizing a layout of the web page such that information placed importance by each purchaser is preferentially displayed based on the importance level, wherein the layout of the web page is continuously updated based on a change in the importance level. (see at least ¶0025-¶0028, customizing content on user interface based on affinity scoring; see also ¶0076, updating and maintenance of affinity score include history score, future score and current user activity; see also ¶0017; see also Figures 5 and 8 along with associated text)
Claim 5:
Ouyang discloses claim 4. Ouyang further discloses:
further comprising: calculating, by using the operation log, the human thing information, and the importance level, enrichment including thing information enrichment indicating whether the thing information on the web page is enriched and human information enrichment indicating whether the human information on the web page is enriched. (see at least ¶0035, affinity score provides a cumulative ongoing score that can be updated as new events are generated; see also ¶0076, updating and maintenance of affinity score include history score, future score and current user activity; see also ¶0017)
Claim 6:
Ouyang disclose claim 5. Ouyang further discloses:
further comprising: customizing a layout of the web page such that information placed importance by each purchaser is preferentially displayed on the basis of the importance level and the enrichment. (see at least ¶0025-¶0028, customizing content on user interface based on affinity scoring; see also ¶0076, updating and maintenance of affinity score include history score, future score and current user activity; see also ¶0017; see also Figures 5 and 8 along with associated text; see also ¶0038, user interface optimization process may apply affinity score content customization)
Claim 4 for a method and Claim 8 for a CRM (Ouyang see ¶0070) substantially recites the subject matter of Claim 1 for a computation device (Ouyang see Figure 1) and are rejected based on the same rationale.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouyang (US 2019/0385219) in view of Nickerson et al. (US 2005/0240618).
Claim 11:
While Ouyang discloses claim 1, Ouyang does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Nickerson does disclose:
further comprising: an importance level calculation device that is connected to the web browser to able to communicate with it via a network and receives from the web browser a questionnaire response result regarding importance information, an importance level, and a web page operation log, receive web page information, calculate importance, and output customized web page information. (see at least ¶0035, feedback measurement tool includes user feedback from selected aspects of a webpage (content, design, usability, etc.); see also ¶0048, modify one or more pages of website according to rating or other feedback to improve pages or better tailored pages; see also ¶0063, user feedback is explicit questions)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the customization of user interface based user activity of Ouyang with the feedback measurement tool of Nickerson to provide a tool to measure user feedback concerning aspects of a web page (see ¶0035). Further, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12:
While Ouyang and Nickerson disclose claim 11, Ouyang does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Nickerson does disclose:
wherein the importance level calculation device calculates an initial value Pini of the importance level from the questionnaire response results regarding important information and updates the importance level from the operation log. (see at least ¶0088-¶0091, rating values for one or more websites; see also ¶0091, overall ratings and website index value periodically updated)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the customization of user interface based user activity of Ouyang with the feedback measurement tool of Nickerson to provide a tool to measure user feedback concerning aspects of a web page (see ¶0035). Further, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 13:
While Ouyang and Nickerson disclose claim 12, Ouyang does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Nickerson does disclose:
wherein the importance level calculation device uses the operation log L in which the importance level is known to calculate adequacy of the contents. (see at least ¶0035, measuring feedback concerning content, design, usability or other suitable aspect of page; see also ¶0066)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the customization of user interface based user activity of Ouyang with the feedback measurement tool of Nickerson to provide a tool to measure user feedback concerning aspects of a web page (see ¶0035). Further, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 14:
While Ouyang and Nickerson disclose claim 12, Ouyang further discloses wherein the importance level calculation unit [receives a questionnaire response result ] or the importance level, the web page operation log L, and the human object information stored in a web data management unit, and uses received values as inputs to determine the importance level (see at least ¶0016, affinity score is composed of components such as a current activity value, historical scoring value and a predicted scoring value which are produced from measurements of customer activities with individual products, groups of products, categories and product brands; see also ¶0028, level of interest; see also ¶0033-¶0025, streaming events captured from user interface include product, product type, brand, characteristics, specifications, reviews and features), Ouyang does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Nickerson does disclose:
wherein the importance level calculation unit receives a questionnaire response result or the importance level, the web page operation log L, and the human object information stored in a web data management unit, and uses received values as inputs to determine the importance level. (see at least see at least ¶0035, feedback measurement tool includes user feedback from selected aspects of a webpage (content, design, usability, etc.))
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the customization of user interface based user activity of Ouyang with the feedback measurement tool of Nickerson to provide a tool to measure user feedback concerning aspects of a web page (see ¶0035).
Claims 15-18 for a method and Claims 19-21 for a CRM substantially recites the subject matter of Claims 11-14 for a device and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Anders (US 2019/0349439) discloses altering a website from a default appearance to a personalized appearance includes aggregating user-specific information based on an online user activity across a plurality of platforms, analyzing the aggregated user-specific information based on the online user activity.
Blice et al. (US 11243675) discloses adjusting an appearance of graphical elements of an application in response to user behavior.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights