DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Prosecutorial Standing
2. This communication is in response to the Application filed on 06.25.2024. Claims 1-20 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below.
Oath/Declaration
3. The Applicants’ oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, i.e., an abstract idea, and because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than just an abstract idea.
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an online system that obtains items from different sources for presentation or access by various users. The claim is directed to a process and a method that is performed at a computer system. Exemplary claims 1 recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
identifying a geographic region;
identifying sources that are associated with the geographic region;
generating a set of candidate combinations for selecting one or more sources from a plurality of slots in a source identification section having a specific number of slots;
presenting interfaces including different candidate source identification sections;
generating a plurality of metrics for each candidate combination based on interactions;
selecting a specific combination based on the plurality of metrics.
These limitations collectively describe evaluating alternative arrangements of information, and models based on user interaction data and selecting a preferred arrangement. These limitations are mainly focused on optimizing source identification using models and user interactions, a business/data processing idea. These limitations are considered be:
1) Certain method of organizing human activity: the claim describes optimization of content presentation and source selection based on user behavior metrics (e.g., marketing optimization, content testing, evaluation alternatives based on performance metrics, and organizing and managing information presentation). These are commercial and managing information presentation. Further, the claim involves gathering data, processing it to optimize outcomes, and selecting based on metrics.
2) Mental processes: the steps of generating candidate combination, comparing performance metrics, and selecting a preferred combination can be performed conceptually or with open and paper. The claim recites evaluation and selection logic that could be performed mentally by human decision maker reviewing performance data.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements of “a computer system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium”, “presenting interfaces”, and “generating metrics”. These elements are recited at a high-level of such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e., identifying data, generating combinations, presenting interfaces, collecting interaction metrics, and selecting an option). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of additional elements, which are well-understood, routine, and conventional, comprise a computer system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium”, “presenting interfaces”, and “generating metrics to assist in performing the aforementioned steps and thus amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS). The claim is not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 define the
same abstract idea noted above for independent claim 1, and similarly
independent claims 11 and 19 and are considered to be part of the abstract idea above and merely act to further limit it. In the dependent claims, the additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer functioning in a standard mode of operation or matters that are routine and conventional in the field. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. To address this rejection, the examiner suggests reviewing the recent Federal Circuit Court decisions and USPTO guidelines related to U.S.C. 101 for guidance on what is considered statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nassif et al., Patent No.: US 11,126,785 in view of Loi et al., Pub., No.: US 2023/0186360.
As per claims 1, 9, and 10, Nassif discloses a method, performed at a computer system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium [as illustrated ibn FIG, 1 (e.g., an interface on a display screen 104 of a computing device 102 might display content to a user per conventional approaches), and shown below]
PNG
media_image1.png
325
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprising:
identifying a geographic region [see at least column 14: lines 11-18 (e.g., Context data may include the other content items being displayed as well as user data, location data, time of day or other temporal data, etc. Personalization component 518 can determine context data for use by content optimization system 512 to select content for the layout. For example, personalization component 518 may extract temporal and location data from requests received through interface 510), also illustrated in FIG. 5 (e.g., personalization component 518), and shown below];
PNG
media_image2.png
716
457
media_image2.png
Greyscale
identifying sources of items for the computer system that are associated with the geographic region [see at least column 13: lines 27-35 (e.g., a request received to the content provider environment 508 might be from another entity, such as a third-party content provider 506. As discussed previously, such providers may provide content to be displayed to users as part of, or along with, the served content. In some embodiments, a third-party content provider 506 may provide content and layout information, as well as user interaction information, and may be provided with a content selection model for their content), and see FIG. 5 (e.g., block 506), presented above];
generating a set of candidate combinations of models for selecting one or more sources from a plurality of models and slots in a source identification section having a specific number of slots, each candidate combination including a model from the set of models associated with one or more slots and an additional model from the set of models associated with one or more alternative slots, different candidate combinations associating one or more of the model or the additional model with at least one different slot than other candidate combinations of the set [see at least the abstract (e.g., a web page may include multiple slots where content items may be displayed on the web page. Each component may be associated with multiple possible content items, resulting in many combinations of layouts for an entity), and the background/summary section of the invention (e.g., Given the amount of content available to be presented, identifying an optimized combination can be challenging. Traditional multivariate analyses have included generating each possible combination of content and presenting the combinations to different users. By monitoring how the users interact with the various combinations of content, an optimal combination (e.g., a combination resulting in a high success rate based on one or more metrics) may be identified. However, such fully factorial analyses can require substantial traffic to identify the optimal combination, particularly as the number of available content items increases. Even high traffic web sites may require months of traffic to test combinations before the optimum combination can be determined. Additionally, such techniques are not adaptable to changing conditions and preferences, leading to a combination that may only be optimal for a subset of users under particular conditions. Accordingly, providing the user with a combination of content that is optimized for the user can result in increased user engagement, higher profitability, or other favorable results for the provider of that content)];
generating a candidate source identification section for each candidate combination of the set, each slot of a candidate source identification section displaying information identifying a source associated with the geographic region selected based on a model associated with the slot by a corresponding candidate combination [see at least the abstract (e.g., content server may determine which layout to provide using a content selection model that is weighted based on a likelihood of groupings of content items resulting in a user interaction that satisfies a success condition (e.g., selecting a hyperlink, selecting a content item, initiating a transaction, etc.).)];
presenting interfaces including different candidate source identification sections to users associated with the geographic region [see at least column 7: lines 10-13 (e.g., a request for content can be received from an application 412 executing on a computing device 102 through an interface 414, such as a web interface or other network or communication interface), and also see paragraph bridging columns 8 and 9 (e.g., a network interface layer 414 of content optimization system 402. The network interface layer can include any appropriate components known or used to receive requests from across a network, such as may include one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) or other such interfaces for receiving such requests. The network interface layer 414 might be owned and operated by the service provider, or leveraged by the service provider as part of a shared resource or “cloud” offering)];
generating a plurality of metrics for each candidate combination of the set based on interactions with the presented interfaces including candidate source identification sections corresponding to each candidate combination of the set by the users associated with the geographic region [see at least paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5 (e.g., success conditions may be defined based on one or more metrics of user interaction, such as clicks, purchases, and revenue to the provider of that content, the service provider, or other entity)];
selecting a specific combination of the set of candidate combinations based on the plurality of metrics, the specific combination associating a first model of the set of candidate combinations of models with one or more slots of the source identification section and associating a second model of the set of candidate combinations of models with one or more remaining slots of the source identification section [see at least paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5 (e.g., success conditions may be defined based on one or more metrics of user interaction, such as clicks, purchases, and revenue to the provider of that content, the service provider, or other entity. FIG. 2 illustrates an example 200 content layout in accordance with an embodiment. As shown in FIG. 2, a specific combination of content items is displayed)]; and
storing an association between the specific combination of the set and the geographic region [as illustrated in FIG. 4 (e.g., block 402 (e.g., system 402 may also include various data stores to store data and/or files in connection with model generation and content layout selection)), and presented below].
PNG
media_image3.png
570
379
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nassif discloses all elements per claimed invention as explained above. Nassif does not expressly disclose identifying a geographic region. However, Loi discloses identifying a geographic region [see at least ¶0056 (e.g., identifying a location in a common geographic region as the user to whom the interface 515)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Loi in order to provide an interface to a customer identifying items offered by a physical warehouse and receives selections of one or more items for an order from the customer [Loi: ¶0003].
As per claim 2, Nassif discloses wherein selecting a specific combination of the set of candidate combinations comprises selecting, for the first model, an interaction model generating a probability of a user performing a specific interaction with a source based on attributes of the source and characteristics of the user [see at least column 3: lines 6-15 (e.g., determining the probability of a success condition for a particular combination of image, text, and header components (e.g., P(image, text, header)) may be costly. However, sampling techniques, such as Thompson sampling, Gibbs sampling, or other techniques, may be used to approximate the distribution of the probability of success of a given image, text, and heading combination. Using sampling techniques, estimates of pairwise (or other groupings) probability (e.g., P(imageltext,heading); P(textlimage,heading); and P(headinglimage,text)) may be calculated, which are less resource intensive)].
As per claim 3, Nassif in view of Loi discloses wherein selecting a specific combination of the set of candidate combinations comprises selecting, for the second model, a discovery model generating an interaction volume for the source based on attributes of the geographic region, the interaction volume comprising a number of a specific interaction from users in the geographic region during a specific time interval [see at least Loi: ¶0006 (e.g., a specific time interval and ¶0015), and see the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Nassif and Loi, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 3 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 3. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Loi in order to provide an interface to a customer identifying items offered by a physical warehouse and receives selections of one or more items for an order from the customer [Loi: ¶0003].
As per claim 4, Nassif in view of Loi discloses wherein the computer system applies the interaction model to sources associated with the geographic region with which a user previously performed a specific interaction [see at least Loi: ¶0006 (e.g., a specific time interval and ¶0015), and see the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Nassif and Loi, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 4 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 4. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Loi in order to provide an interface to a customer identifying items offered by a physical warehouse and receives selections of one or more items for an order from the customer [Loi: ¶0003].
As per claim 5, Nassif in view of Loi discloses wherein the computer system applies the discovery model to sources associated with the geographic region with which a user did not perform a specific interaction during a specific time interval [see at least the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Nassif and Loi, as noted for claims 1, 3, and 4 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 5 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 5. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4, which is incorporated herein by reference].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Loi in order to provide an interface to a customer identifying items offered by a physical warehouse and receives selections of one or more items for an order from the customer [Loi: ¶0003].
As per claim 6, Nassif discloses wherein selecting the specific combination of the set of candidate combinations based on the plurality of metrics comprises: selecting a candidate combination having a value of a metric equaling or exceeding a threshold value and having a value of an alternative metric equaling or exceeding an alternative threshold value [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Nassif and Loi, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 6 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 6. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 7, Nassif discloses wherein the metric is based on a percentage of sources presented by a corresponding candidate source identification with which users in the geographic region performed a specific interaction within a threshold amount of time after presentation of the corresponding candidate source identification section [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Nassif and Loi, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 7 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 7. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 8, Nassif discloses wherein the alternative metric is based on a percentage of sources presented by the corresponding candidate source identification with which users in the geographic region had not performed the specific interaction within a specific time interval before presentation of the corresponding candidate source identification section [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Nassif and Loi, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 8 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 8. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
9. Claims 11-18, which are parallel to claims 1-10 in terms of scope,
limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined
above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and
underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 1-10. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-10].
10. Claims 19-20, which are parallel to claims 1-10 in terms of scope,
limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined
above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and
underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 1-10. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-10].
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,373,879, Maharaj: discloses an online concierge system facilitates ordering, procurement, and delivery of items to a customer from physical retailers based on shared cart recommendations.
US 2025/0166054, Wang: discloses a checkout system and checkout method for a retail environment.
US 2024/0412271, XIAO: discloses system, method and/or computer program product embodiments, and/or combinations and sub-combinations thereof.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached on 517-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Garcia Ade/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627