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 .
Objection to the Specification
2. Applicant is requested to update status of related applications cited in page 1 of the specification, i.e., providing patent numbers where appropriate.
Non-Art Rejection
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting as being unpatentable over prior U.S. Patent No. 12,124,352.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because the patent claims comprise all limitations required in the present claims. The present claims are merely broader in scope than that of the patent claims.
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following language is vague and indefinite:
In claim 1, line 10, “identify a plurality of distractions as function of the user interest”, it is not clear as to whether it refers to the step of identifying distractions that are related to user interest/activity or a step of identifying a function or relationship between a distraction and user interest.
The same indefiniteness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 11.
In claim 10, line 1, a meaning of “a path further compromise using a web crawler” cannot be determined.
The same indefiniteness of claim 10 is also applied to claim 20.
Art Rejection
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. Claims 1-4, 7, 11-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amalapurapu, U.S. pat. No. 10,198,524, in view of Parker, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2011/0320583.
Per claim 1, Amalapurapu discloses an apparatus for generating a path containing a user engagement target, the apparatus comprising at least a processor and a memory containing instructions configuring the processor to:
a) receive user data identifying a purpose of a user (see col 9, ln 50-56);
b) track a user interest over a plurality of platforms, wherein tracking the user interest comprises determining an interest level of a user on a platform of the plurality of platforms (see col 7, ln 57-67);
c) identify a plurality of activities as function of the user interest (see col 10, ln 1-10); and
d) generate a path for the user based on the activities and the user interest, wherein the path identifies a user engagement target (see col 9, ln 1-32).
Amalapurapu does not teach identifying activities indicating distractions and classifying distractions to productive and non-productive categories. However, Parker discloses a prior art method for monitoring user activities and user navigation path, wherein the monitored activities comprise distraction events , i.e., interrupted events, which can be classified to productive category, i.e., user initiated events, and non-productive category, i.e., system failure (see Parker, par 0035), wherein the distraction events can be used to determine user habit or engagement target (see Parker, 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Amalapurapu with Parker teaching because it would have further assisted determining user engagement target.
Per claims 2-3, Amalapurapu teaches that user data comprises user purpose (i.e., profile) and/or obligations (i.e., intended actions) related to purpose or profile (see col 7, ln 27-41).
Per claim 4, Amalapurapu teaches receiving system logs from a user device (see col 7, ln 42-50).
Per claim 7, Amalapurapu teaches generating a utility score indicating usefulness or relevancy for each path of the plurality of paths and ranking the paths based on the utility score (see col 9, ln 10-32).
Claims 11-14 and 17 are similar in scope as that of claims 1-4 and 7.
10. Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amalapurapu and Parker, and further in view of Middleton, U.S. pat. No. 6,393,407.
Neither Parker nor Amalapurapu explicitly teach tracking user activity comprises tracking a mouse cursor movement and idle time of a user on a web page. However, Middleton discloses a prior art method for tracking user activity that includes tracking a mouse cursor movement and idle time of a user (see Middleton, col 2, ln 26-40, and col 5, ln 21-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply such user tracking functions in Amalapurapu because it would have enabled tracking user interactions with the web contents.
11. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amalapurapu and Parker, and further in view of Samarev, U.S. pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2020/0184529.
Neither Parker nor Amalapurapu teaches using a web crawler to collect user data and generating user path. However, such use of web crawler to collect user data across the network is well known in the art as disclosed by Samarev (see Samarev, par 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize any known data collection tool such as web crawler in Amalapurapu because it would have enabled collecting user data across the networks.
12. Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are not rejected on art.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Viet Vu whose telephone number is 571-272-3977. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:00am to 6:00pm. The Group general information number is 571-272-2400. The Group fax number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Emmanuel Moise, can be reached at 571-272-3865.
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).
/Viet D Vu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
01/12/26