DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
In response filed on February 6, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 1-20. Claims 1-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
v Applicant has amended the abstract to correct minor informalities identified in the previous action. Applicant’s amended abstract has been considered, and is approved for entry. These objections have been withdrawn accordingly.
v Applicant has amended the claims to correct two of the informalities identified in the previous action. These objections have been withdrawn accordingly. However, the objection to claim 11 has not been addressed, and is maintained. Claim 11 is still objected to because of the following informalities: --re-engaging-- should be inserted to replace “re-engages” in the phrase “re-engages the target user by bringing the target user to a second service module” to ensure the claim language conforms with standard grammatical construction. Appropriate correction is required.
v Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the rejection of claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as not being drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (e.g., for encompassing embodiments such as propagating electrical or electromagnetic signals per se, carrier waves) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Although Applicant’s disclosure suggests that “The memory 620 is an example of the computer-readable media” (para [0137]), and further explains that "(a)s defined herein, the computer-readable media do not include transitory media, such as modulated data signals and carriers” (para [0138]), it is not explicit or required that claims 10-12 are directed to what Applicant’s disclosure refers to as “the memory 620” or “computer-readable media”. In other words, even though a broadest reasonable interpretation of “the memory 620” may be limited to encompass only subject matter that falls within a statutory category, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language (i.e., “one or more memories”) is not so limited. These rejections have been maintained.
In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming this rejection, the USPTO suggest that a claim drawn to a computer-readable medium be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments, namely by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to that which the claims are directed, as long as the specification supports a non-transitory embodiment (not new matter).
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained accordingly.
Applicant specifically argues that
1) “Claim 1, as amended, recite specific technical steps that go far beyond any alleged
abstract idea…. These limitations recite specific technical operations performed by a computing system, not merely an abstract business concept. Further, these features are apparently are not one of the enumerated sub-groups per Oct 2019 Update (emphasis added). Thus, claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s first argument.
Each of the "filtering the user behavior data to obtain valid data", "aggregating the valid data to obtain data values under a plurality of data metrics", "providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity", "receiving offers from multiple merchants", "generating…a re-engagement message…including the multiple merchants",”…collect interaction data indicating a user re-engagement effect," and "based on the interaction data, performing a flow control for delivering the re engagement message" limitations are not “technical steps” or “technical operations”, they are part of the abstract idea. These steps are only technical in that claim 10 requires one or more processors to perform them, and claim 13 requires a device having one or more processors and memories to perform them (claim 1 does not even require a computer perform them). The requirement for the re-engagement message to be provided via and/or in association with a “landing page” and/or for the user interaction data to be collected via “adding one or more anchors in the landing page" serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet, where information (e.g., commodity information, purchase forms, etc.) is represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces (e.g., via webpages). For example, the commodity information service system may be an e-marketplace or may even be interpreted as generally being “the internet”. Either way, it is merely a particular technological environment or field of use (electronic shopping using webpages and web browsers). Furthermore, the requirement for the marketing content to include a landing page limits the re-engagement content to be digital content (e.g., digital marketing content and an internet-based landing page), as opposed to re-engaging the customer with physical advertising content or in-person contact with a service representative. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, these steps (in combination with the other steps not specifically mentioned in the argument) describe a business process for re-engaging a shopper to attempt to persuade the shopper to make a purchase. Such a business process amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (specifically, an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior). re-engaging a shopper to attempt to persuade the shopper to make a purchase is clearly an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior, and therefore amount to subject matter amounting to a commercial or legal interaction, which is one of the enumerated sub-groups per the 2019 Update. These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant specifically argues that
2) “Here, the amended claim 1 recites an improvement to the design of network interaction technology that effectively reduces computer reduces waste through a two interaction systems. These specific technical implementation improve the functioning of re-engagement systems by providing a feedback mechanism through anchors embedded in landing pages that collect interaction data, which is then used to control the flow of re-engagement messages. This technical approach provides a concrete improvement over prior systems by enabling dynamic adjustment of message delivery based on collected interaction data… the specific re-engagement will be more easily accepted by the user, thereby improving the success rate of user re-engagement, reducing resource waste, and further helping user retention or user growth in the second service module… This is an improvement to the design of network interaction technology that effectively reduces computer reduces waste through the two interaction systems. Whether such features are well-known should not be addressed in prong two of Step 2A.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s second argument.
Although the specification asserts that re-engaging the user with a message with offers from multiple merchants (e.g., offers regarding a commodity with which the user has a purchase intention) may re-engage the user with “exactly what he needs without realizing it at the time” and with a message that “will be more easily accepted by the user, thereby improving the success rate of user re-engagement, reducing resource waste” i) the alleged improvement is not necessarily realized as a result of the claim language, and ii) there is not enough detail provided in the specification (or in general) to make it apparent that the resources used overall would actually be reduced. For example, it is not clear or required that the offers provided to the user are actually of interest and/or accepted by the user. Applicant generally suggests the offers may be more easily accepted by the user. However, the user may not actually end up accepting the offers. In other words, even though Applicant hopes the re-engagement message results in a purchase/success, this might not actually occur. The claimed invention may result in utilization of a resource-intensive process that displays a re-engagement message that ultimately results in an undesirable result (i.e., no purchase). Similarly, although the claims require “performing a flow control for delivering the re-engagement message”, this does not necessarily result in greater acceptance rate. The end-user still ultimately has to decide whether or not to purchase a product based on the re-engagement messages. Finally, even if the user does accept the re-engagement offer, one of ordinary skill in the art would not necessarily understand that this overall process actually reduced resource consumption/waste. The sequence of steps (acquiring user behavior data, filtering it, aggregating it to obtain data values under a plurality of metrics, determine a target user, providing a purchase form, receiving multiple offers from merchants, generating a landing page with these multiple offers, adding one or more anchors to the page, collecting interaction data, performing a flow control…) all require utilization of computational resources. Applicant’s specification merely asserts that this overall process results in less resource consumption/waste. However, it is not clear or apparent that even if users accept more offers, the computational resource utilization used to implement all of these steps (as a whole) is less and/or improved upon. This proclamations in the specification amount to a conclusory assertion. Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) “The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”
Applicant specifically argues that
3) “The claims of the present application include specific means or method that improves the relevant technology, and the claimed method uses a combined set of specifically recited steps and features that provides improvements to speech processing technology. The claims include steps and features that are not routine or conventional. The combination of steps and features, when looked at as a whole, is significantly more…Amended claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea under Step 2B. The specific combination of filtering user behavior data, aggregating valid data into data metrics, generating landing pages with embedded anchors for collecting interaction data, and using that interaction data to perform flow control represents an unconventional technical approach that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field. The ordered combination of these elements provides an inventive concept that transforms any alleged abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter…The Office does not provide any factual support for such a conclusion by including a citation to an express statement made by an applicant, a citation to a court decision discussed in MPEP $2016.05(d)(II), or a citation to a publication, or by taking official notice. A general reference of the prior art of record below is not equivalent to "citation to a publication", which is still merely a conclusory statement. If the Office maintains such rejection in the next Office Action, if any, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office take an official notice by filing an affidavit to support such conclusion..”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s third argument.
It appears as if Applicant’s reference to speech processing technology was inadvertently included in the arguments, as the instant invention has nothing to do with speech processing. Furthermore, the step 2B inquiry is not whether or not the claims as a whole are well-understood, routine, or conventional. If so, any novel or non-obvious claim would be patent eligible, which is obviously not the case. For example, an Examiner need not rely on factual evidence to support a determination that one or more “additional” elements i) are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and/or ii) serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The Examiner need only cite factual evidence “If the examiner relies on the finding of well-understood, routine, conventional activity to support a determination that a limitation(s) is extrasolution activity” (see October 2019 update footnote 83 at page 21, see also MPEP 2106.07(a).III). The Examiner did not make conclusory statements on pages 11-15 that each of the claim elements were well-understood, routine, and conventional. It is unclear as to which statements Applicant is referring.
v With respect to the rejection of claims 2, 11, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b), Applicant has appropriately amended the claims. These claims have been amended such that they no longer recite that which was identified as being indefinite. These rejections have been withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendments did not adequately address the rejections of claims 8, 9, and 20 (see rejections below). Examiner further notes that the amended claim language has introduced new limitations that are indefinite for failing to particularly and distinctly claim the subject matter which the application regards as the invention. Please see the new rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b) below.
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of amended claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the teaching of Valimaki and Linden are distinct from the claimed approach of "providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity" and "receiving offers from multiple merchants" as recited by claim 1, and specifically that their approaches are “fundamentally different from a landing page "including the multiple merchants" who have provided offers in response to the user's description of a desired commodity.” However, Applicant’s argument is incommensurate with what is actually claimed. The instant claims do not involve or require that the offers from the multiple merchants are in response to, or otherwise associated with the description of the commodity provided by the target user. Applicant’s claims broadly refer to a “purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity” (see Examiner’s Claim Interpretation Section below), separately refers to receiving offers from merchants (e.g., descriptions of their products), and subsequent generation of a landing page that includes these offers (see the Examiner’s interpretation described in the rejection of these claims under 35 USC 112(b), as the phrase “the landing page including the multiple merchants” is vague and indefinite). A landing page comprise the purchase form of Linden that includes the descriptions of the products in the cart (i.e., the offers from the multiple merchants) reads on the claim limitations presently recited. If Applicant would like to narrow the claimed embodiment to require the purchase form to be a form where the target user can describe a commodity they would like to purchase but have been unable to find (or add to cart), wherein the system can then provide this information to merchants so that they can provide offers for the product based on description they provided to the purchase form, and then when these offers are provided on the landing page, Applicant should further amend the claim language to require such an interpretation. Embodiments from the specification are not to be read into the claims when the claim language does not require as much. The rejections of claims 1 and 13 (as well as each of their respective dependent claims) have been maintained.
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of amended claim 10 (as well as dependent claims 11 and 12) under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) have been considered, but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 12, 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Abstracts only were provided for the foreign patent documents, and therefore only the abstracts were considered.
Claim Interpretation
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
The claimed “second service module” (claim 11) is not explicitly defined in the specification. The Examiner understands the claimed module to be programmed functionality of the system (i.e., the “commodity information service system”) that generate and/or provide commodity information via webpages of a website. As best as understood, the “second service module” is system functionality that provides information/webpages to re-engage a user based on their associated user behavior data. Paragraphs [0086]-[0087] provide an example where “after the target users who need to be re-engaged are determined, marketing content can be assembled and sent to the target users through target marketing channels…email or site message push… assuming that it is found that the user has recently browsed and compared certain commodities repeatedly in the first service module but has not placed an order, the user may be re-engaged…the information related to the browsed commodities can be reflected in the marketing content pushed to the user… The target user may click a button such as view details button 306 to view details of the representative commodities… a landing page corresponding to the specific marketing notification message may further be configured in the marketing content.”. Originally filed claims 8 and 9 relatedly confirm that one example of “re-engaging the target user with a second service module of the commodity information service system so that the target user initiates a purchase form in the second service module and interact therewith” comprises “assembling a marketing content and sending the marketing content to the target user through a target marketing channel, wherein the marketing content is related to the commodity information associated with real-time behavior data” (claim 8) and “wherein: the marketing content includes a landing page corresponding to a marketing notification message” (claim 9).
Any web-browsing data generated via interaction with these various pages constitutes “a general user behavior data stream log” that comprises the claimed “user behavior data”, which is browsing data specific to a particular user (see [0054] & [0072] & [0076]-[0077] & [0080] of the published disclosure). The “general user behavior data stream log” is said to be used to provide services for “downstream applications”. Applicant’s disclosure does not provide a definition for “downstream applications”, nor does it provide any examples of the applications. As best as understood, the suggestion that the “general user behavior data stream log” is used to provide services for “downstream applications” simply means that this data can be used for subsequent (i.e., “downstream”) system uses (e.g., analyzing shopper data to obtain business insights, for use when providing product recommendations, etc., as it would be commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art).
Applicant has not provided an explicit definition for the “purchase form” or a “purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity” claim element. Although the disclosure appears to suggest an embodiment where a customer can interact with a purchase form and the system will then recommend multiple merchants to the user ([0066]), this appears to be only one possible interpretation, the specification fails to suggest a particular/consistent required interpretation of a “purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity”, and limitations from various exemplary embodiments from the specification are not to be read into the claims. Examiner notes that the plain meaning of “purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity” is some form where a user inputs product-related or purchase-related information as part of a broader process for purchasing a product. As such, initiating or interacting with a purchase form, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, comprises interacting with a form where a user inputs product-related or purchase-related information where the user can provide a description of a commodity as part of a broader process for purchasing a commodity.
The claim limitation “determining a target user having a commodity purchase intention and having difficulty in finding or deciding on a commodity according to the data values under the plurality of data metrics that match a re-engagement condition” is understood to comprise determining, by analyzing the user behavior data, a target user that has user behavior data (specifically determined/extracted data metrics therefrom) that match a re-engagement condition established for shoppers that have browsed but not yet purchased a product. The re-engagement conditions are conditions that are used to categorize a target shopper as a shopper that has a “commodity purchase intention” (i.e., is interested in a product, and likely wants to purchase it) yet is having difficulty in finding or deciding on commodities in the first service module (i.e., has not yet purchased it).
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: --re-engaging-- should be inserted to replace “re-engages” in the phrase “re-engages the target user by bringing the target user to a second service module” to ensure the claim language conforms with standard grammatical construction. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
v Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are directed to "one or more memories storing thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts". A broadest reasonable interpretation of “one or more memories storing thereon computer-readable instructions” encompasses both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (e.g., physical random-access memory), as well as subject matter that does not (e.g., propagating electrical or electromagnetic signals per se, carrier waves). Examiner notes that although Applicant’s published specification states "(a)s defined herein, the computer-readable media do not include transitory media, such as modulated data signals and carriers”, the instant claims are directed to one or more memories storing thereon computer-readable instructions, not computer-readable media. Furthermore, although Applicant’s disclosure suggests that “The memory 620 is an example of the computer-readable media” (para [0137]), and further explains that "(a)s defined herein, the computer-readable media do not include transitory media, such as modulated data signals and carriers” (para [0138]), it is not explicit or required that the “one or more memories storing thereon computer-readable instructions” to which claims 10-12 are directed is required to correspond to what Applicant’s disclosure refers to as “the memory 620”. In other words, even though a broadest reasonable interpretation of “the memory 620” may be limited to encompass only subject matter that falls within a statutory category, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language is not so limited.
As such, claim(s) 10-12 as a whole is/are not drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: No).
In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming this rejection, the USPTO suggest that a claim drawn to a computer-readable medium be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments, namely by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to that which the claims are directed, as long as the specification supports a non-transitory embodiment (not new matter).
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process), while claim(s) 13-20 is/are drawn to devices (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1-9 and 13-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Examiner notes that claims 10-12 will also be included in the following analysis, as Applicant’s may easily amend these claims such that they are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (e.g., by explicitly requiring the one or more memories to be non-transitory).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim 13) recites/describes the following steps;
acquiring user behavior data in a commodity information service system, the user behavior data including behavior data generated in a first interaction of a user with the commodity information service system, the first interaction including browsing commodity information
filtering the user behavior data to obtain valid data
aggregating the valid data to obtain data values under a plurality of data metrics
determining a target user having a commodity purchase intention and having difficulty in finding or deciding on a commodity according to the data values under the plurality of data metrics that match a re- engagement condition
after determining the target user, re-engaging the target user to have a second interaction with the commodity information service system, the second interaction including: providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity;
receiving offers from multiple merchants;
generating…a re-engagement message… including the multiple merchants;
collect interaction data indicating a user re-engagement effect; and
based on the interaction data, performing a flow control for delivering the re-engagement message
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a business process for re-engaging a shopper to attempt to persuade the shopper to make a purchase. Specifically, the business process comprises acquiring user behavior data (i.e., user interaction and/or commodity browsing data generated by a user), filtering the user behavior data to obtain valid data, aggregating the valid data to obtain data values under a plurality of data metrics, determining a target user having a commodity purchase intention and having difficulty in finding or deciding on a commodity according to the data values under the plurality of data metrics that match a re-engagement condition, after determining the target user, re-engaging the target user to have a second interaction with the commodity information service system, the second interaction including: providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity; receiving offers from multiple merchants; generating a re-engagement message including the multiple merchants; collect interaction data indicating a user re-engagement effect; and based on the interaction data, performing a flow control for delivering the re-engagement message. This process amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (specifically, an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 13 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Claim 10 recites/describes the following steps;
providing, in response to a request to configure a user re-engagement condition, a plurality of alternative data metrics related to behavior data generated in a process of a user interacting a commodity information service system by browsing commodity information
generating a re-engagement condition according to at least one selected data metric and configured threshold information; and
configuring the user re-engagement condition into a user re-engagement service, the configuring including
providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity;
receiving offers from multiple merchants;
generating…a re-engagement message… including the multiple merchants;
collecting interaction data indicating a user re-engagement effect; and
adjusting the user re-engagement condition according the user re-engagement effect
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a business process for re-engaging a shopper to attempt to persuade the shopper to make a purchase. Specifically, the business process comprises providing, in response to a request to configure a user re-engagement condition, a plurality of alternative data metrics related to behavior data generated in a process of a user interacting a commodity information service system by browsing commodity information, generating a re-engagement condition according to at least one selected data metric and configured threshold information; and configuring the user re-engagement condition into a user re-engagement service, the configuring including providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity; receiving offers from multiple merchants; generating a re-engagement message including the multiple merchants; collecting interaction data indicating a user re-engagement effect; and adjusting the user re-engagement condition according the user re-engagement effect. This process amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (specifically, an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim. The same reasoning is similarly applicable to the limitations in the remaining dependent claims, and their respective limitations are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“one or more memories storing thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts comprising” (Independent claim 10)
“a device comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts” (Independent claim 13)
“generating a landing page associated with a re-engagement message, the landing page including the multiple merchants” (Independent claims 1, 10, and 13)
“adding one or more anchors in the landing page to collect interaction data” (Independent claims 1, 10, and 13)
“wherein: the marketing content includes the landing page corresponding to a marketing notification message; the landing page is generated through a visual construction system; and the user behavior data is collected by adding the one or more anchors in the landing page” (dependent claims 9 and 20)
“to a second service module of the commodity information service system” (claim 11)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “one or more memories storing thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts comprising” (Independent claim 10) or “a device comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts” (Independent claim 13) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s own disclosure explains that these “additional” elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., the published specification at paragraphs [0135] “Herein, the processor 610 may be implemented using a general-purpose CPU (Central Processing Unit) processor..”, [0143] “(a)s can be seen from the description of the above embodiments, it is clear to those skilled in the art that the present disclosure can be implemented by means of software plus the necessary general hardware platform…The computer software product can be stored in a storage medium, such as a ROM/RAM, a magnetic disk, and an optical disk, and include several instructions for enabling a computer device (which may be a personal computer, a server, a network device, or the like) to execute the methods described in the embodiments or some parts of the embodiments of the present disclosure”, see also [0136]-[0142]). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited additional element(s) of “generating a landing page associated with a re-engagement message, the landing page including the multiple merchants” (Independent claims 1, 10, and 13) and/or “adding one or more anchors in the landing page to collect interaction data” (Independent claims 1, 10, and 13) and/or “wherein: the marketing content includes the landing page corresponding to a marketing notification message; the landing page is generated through a visual construction system; and the user behavior data is collected by adding the one or more anchors in the landing page” (dependent claims 9 and 20) and/or “to a second service module of the commodity information service system” (claim 11) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet, where information (e.g., commodity information, purchase forms, etc.) is represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces. For example, the commodity information service system may be an e-marketplace or may even be interpreted as generally being “the internet”. Either way, it is merely a particular technological environment or field of use (electronic shopping using landing pages and web browsers). Furthermore, the requirement for the marketing content to include a landing page limits the re-engagement content to be digital content (e.g., digital marketing content and an internet-based landing page), as opposed to re-engaging the customer with physical advertising content or in-person contact with a service representative. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The recited element(s) of “acquiring user behavior data in a commodity information service system, the user behavior data including behavior data generated in a first interaction of a user with the commodity information service system, the first interaction including browsing commodity information” (Independent claims 1 and 13), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional element(s) do are deemed “extra-solution” because all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, and because such data gathering steps have long been held to be insignificant pre/post-solution activity. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h) and (g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. For example, Applicant’s published specification suggests that it is advantageous to implement the claimed business process because doing so can help encourage/assist a shopper in finalizing a purchase, which can help to increase customer retention, can increase the amount of commodities sold/purchased, and can increase business growth (see, for example, Applicant’s published disclosure at paragraphs [0003] & [0052] & [0069] & [0085] & [0090]). These are non-technical business advantages/improvements. At most, the ordered combination of claim elements is directed to a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved process for re-engaging a shopper).
Dependent claims 2-8, 12, and 14-19 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 2-8, 12, and 14-19 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). For example, claim 2 recites “wherein the behavior data includes behavior data generated by the user”. This is an abstract limitation which further sets forth the abstract idea encompassed by claim 2. This limitation is not an “additional element”, and therefore it is not subject to further analysis under Step 2A- Prong Two or Step 2B. The same logic applies to each of the other dependent claims, whose limitations are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and clarity. With respect to the other dependent claims not specifically listed here - each of the limitations/elements recited in these dependent claims other than those identified as being “additional” elements above (at the beginning of the Prong One analysis), are further part of the abstract idea encompassed by each respective dependent claim (i.e. it should be understood that these limitations are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “one or more memories storing thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts comprising” (Independent claim 10) or “a device comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts” (Independent claim 13) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “generating a landing page associated with a re-engagement message, the landing page including the multiple merchants” (Independent claims 1, 10, and 13) and/or “adding one or more anchors in the landing page to collect interaction data” (Independent claims 1, 10, and 13) and/or “wherein: the marketing content includes the landing page corresponding to a marketing notification message; the landing page is generated through a visual construction system; and the user behavior data is collected by adding the one or more anchors in the landing page” (dependent claims 9 and 20) and/or “to a second service module of the commodity information service system” (claim 11) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited element(s) of “acquiring user behavior data in a commodity information service system, the user behavior data including behavior data generated in a first interaction of a user with the commodity information service system, the first interaction including browsing commodity information” (Independent claims 1 and 13), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional element(s), taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of advertising and re-marketing/re-engaging. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more”. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network. Furthermore, Applicant’s own specification refers to the user behavior data to be a “general user behavior data stream log” from a “general log system”. Furthermore, Applicant’s own specification explains that “conventional solutions….may involve…add anchors to their related from-end pages, so that when behavior of the user…is generated…may notify the user re-engagement service” ([0071]) , and provides no further details anywhere regarding adding of the anchor. As such, Applicant’s own specification acknowledges that adding anchors to pages (e.g., landing pages) that acquire user interaction data was conventional, and the lack of technical detail/description in Applicant’s own specification provides additional implicit evidence that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional. Furthermore, Examiner takes Official Notice that it was well-understood, routine, and conventional at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to acquire user behavior data in a commodity information service system, the user behavior data including behavior data generated in a first interaction of a user with the commodity information service system, the first interaction including browsing commodity information (e.g., user interaction data from webpages as they browse the webpages).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Dependent claims 2-8, 12, and 14-19 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 2-8, 12, and 14-19 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
v Claims 1-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The requirement for an adequate disclosure ensures that the public receives something in return for the exclusionary rights that are granted to the inventor by a patent, and sets forth the minimum requirements for the quality and quantity of information that must be contained in the patent to justify the grant.
In accordance with section 2161.01 I. of the MPEP, “original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349, 94 USPQ2d at 1171 (“[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention’s boundaries.”) (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1405-06). In Ariad, the court recognized the problem of using functional claim language without providing in the specification examples of species that achieve the claimed function. The problem is especially acute with genus claims that use functional language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In such a case, the functional claim may simply claim a desired result, and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus. Id.” This may include disclosure of the hardware and software required to perform a claimed function including the "necessary steps for implementing the claimed function" (e.g. an algorithm, description of steps, flowcharts, etc.) (MPEP; 2161.01 I.). “If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.” (MPEP; 2161.01 I.).
v Claims 1 and 13 recite computer-implemented functional claim language with the claim element “based on the interaction data, performing a flow control for delivering the re-engagement message.”
The specification merely reiterates at several locations that the “flow control” may be performed (see [0023] & [0088] & [0117] & [0161]). Significantly, the specification fails to indicate (i.e. fails to provide the necessary algorithm, description of steps, flowcharts, etc.) for how flow control is performed (generally), and more specifically for how “flow control for delivering the re-engagement message” is performed. Examiner notes that “flow control” is not a term of art. As such, the claims recite functional claim language without providing in the specification examples of species that achieve the claimed function, and does not provide a disclosure of the algorithm/step-by-step instructions in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function.
Furthermore, claims 1 and 13 recite “after determining the target user, re-engaging the target user to have a second interaction with the commodity information service system, the second interaction including: providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity; receiving offers from multiple merchants; generating a landing page associated with a re-engagement message, the landing page including the multiple merchants; adding one or more anchors in the landing page to collect interaction data indicating a user re-engagement effect; and based on the interaction data, performing a flow control for delivering the re-engagement message” which has multiple indefiniteness issues (see below). The Examiner has, to the best of his ability, attempted to provide an interpretation that addresses these issues and enables examination (again, see below in the rejection under 35 USC 112(b)). However, based on both the current claim language and the Examiner’s interpretation, it appears as though Applicant has impermissible combined elements from multiple distinct embodiments into the presently-claimed embodiment, resulting in a secondary ground of rejection under 35 USC 112(a) for new matter. The claims require collecting interaction data indicating a user re-engagement effect using anchors added to the landing page, and then performing flow control for delivering the re-engagement message¸ based on the interaction data. The claims require the landing page to be prided as the transmitted re-engagement message (see below in the rejection under 35 USC 112(b)). All of this occurs after determining the target user as required by the claim language. The specification only mentions adjusting re-engagement conditions (e.g., selecting different data metrics and/or configuration thresholds) based on interaction data (see [0070], [0078] [0087], [0095]-[0096] of the published disclosure) tracked using the anchors. In other words, there is no suggestion of adjusting the delivery or otherwise performing flow control for a message comprises a previously generated landing page for an already identified target user based on interaction data collected via anchors in the landing page. There only appears to support for other distinct embodiments where targeting/triggering criteria (e.g., metrics, thresholds) used to determine target users is adjusted based on the collected interaction data. The newly claimed embodiment therefore comprises new matter. Per the MPEP section 2163 “if a claim is amended to include subject matter, limitations, or terminology not present in the application as filed, involving a departure from, addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application as filed, the examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter is not described in that application. This conclusion will result in the rejection of the claims affected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112, first paragraph.”
For these two different reasons, the claim(s) therefore contain/encompass subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Each of dependent claims 2-9 and 14-20 ultimately depend from one of these claims, inherit these limitations, and therefore similarly contain subject matter that lacks adequate written description support.
Applicant should specifically indicate where in the Specification is there support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend in order to practice compact prosecution and reduce potential issues such as 35 U.S.C. §112, 1st paragraph rejections that may arise when claims are amended without support in the Specification. See MPEP § 714.02 (“Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”).
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 regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims are replete with grammatical, idiomatic, and syntax issues. The combination of grammatical and idiomatic/syntax flaws, use of inconsistent terminology, descriptions of intended use, and apparent descriptions of steps occurring outside the scope of the claimed invention have introduced a variety of claim interpretation challenges. The Examiner has attempted to address these issues (e.g., through clarification of claim interpretation, claim objections, and/or via rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b) where necessary). However, Applicant’s support in addressing any grammatical/idiomatic/syntax issues during the course of prosecution is encouraged.
v Claims 1 and 13 recites “after determining the target user, re-engaging the target user to have a second interaction with the commodity information service system, the second interaction including: providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity; receiving offers from multiple merchants; generating a landing page associated with a re-engagement message, the landing page including the multiple merchants; adding one or more anchors in the landing page to collect interaction data indicating a user re-engagement effect; and based on the interaction data, performing a flow control for delivering the re-engagement message”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim language suggests the target user is re-engages so that the target user has a second interaction with the commodity information service system (i.e., re-engaging the target user to have a second interaction with the commodity information service system). The second interaction with the commodity information service system is described as the intended result of re-engaging the target user, which casts doubt as to whether the claimed inventions even require the target user to have a second interaction within the claim scope. The claims further require that the “second interaction” includes each of the subsequently-recited steps/functions (specifically, providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity; receiving offers from multiple merchants; generating a landing page associated with a re-engagement message, the landing page including the multiple merchants; adding one or more anchors in the landing page to collect interaction data indicating a user re-engagement effect; and based on the interaction data, performing a flow control for delivering the re-engagement message). However, the subsequently-recited steps are not interactions that the target user has with the commodity information service system. For example, “providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity” is not a second interaction the target user has with the commodity information service system. Neither is receiving the offers, generating the landing page, adding the anchors, or performing the flow control. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Furthermore, it is unclear how a landing page could be said to include “the multiple merchants” (themselves). It appears as if it is intended to refer to the offers from the merchants.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether the user to which the purchase form is provided is referring to the “a user” associated with the first interaction, or the “target user”. The claim states that the “target user” is being re-engaged, although subsequent reference to “the user” makes the scope uncertain.
Furthermore, in light of the specification, it appears as if the purchase form and/or landing page itself is the “re-engagement message” (see [0067]-[0069] and [0084]-[0086] of the published disclosure). The claim language would seem to confirm this, as the one or more anchors are added to the landing page to collect interaction data “indicating a user re-engagement effect” (therefore indicating that the landing page is the re-engagement with the target user). However, the claim language suggests the landing page is merely “associated with a re-engagement message”, and that based on the interaction data flow control for delivering the re-engagement message is performed. It is therefore unclear what “re-engaging the target user” comprises, and more generally, what functions are included/excluded from the scope of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, the metes and bounds of “performing a flow control for delivering the re-engagement message” are unclear. Performing a flow control is not a term of art, nor does Applicant’s disclosure provide any details for what would be included/required or excluded from “performing a flow control for delivering the re-engagement message”. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In light of all of the issues identified above, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As best as understood by the Examiner, it appears as if the target user is re-engaged by sending them a purchase form (see published paragraphs [0052] and [0067]-[0069] and [0084]-[0086] of the published disclosure) and that the intended result of sending them this information is that they will have a second interaction with the commodity information system (e.g., interact with the message to input their commodity preferences/desires such that they can receive offers from merchants and to ultimately purchase a product).
For the purpose of examination, the recitation of “after determining the target user, re-engaging the target user to have a second interaction with the commodity information service system, the second interaction including: providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity; receiving offers from multiple merchants; generating a landing page associated with a re-engagement message, the landing page including the multiple merchants; adding one or more anchors in the landing page to collect interaction data indicating a user re-engagement effect; and based on the interaction data, performing a flow control for delivering the re-engagement message” will be interpreted as being “after determining the target user, re-engaging the target user to have a second interaction with the commodity information service systemby: providing a purchase form to the target user for the target user to provide a description of the commodity; receiving offers from multiple merchants; generating a landing page offers from the multiple merchants; adding one or more anchors in the landing page to collect interaction data indicating a user re-engagement effect; providing the landing page to the target user as a transmitted re-engagement message; and based on the interaction data, performing a flow control for subsequent transmissions of to the target user.”
Each of dependent claims 2-9 and 14-20 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency on one of these claims.
v Independent claim 10 recites “configuring the user re-engagement condition into a user re-engagement service, the configuring including”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 makes no reference to “a user re-engagement condition”. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “configuring the user re-engagement condition into a user re-engagement service, the configuring including” will be interpreted as being “configuring the .”
Each of dependent claims 11 and 12 are similarly rejected by virtue of its dependency on this claim.
v Claim 8 recites “wherein the marketing content is related to the commodity information associated with real-time behavior data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 also suggests the landing page includes the multiple merchants, which is not possible. The claims have no prior reference to “real-time behavior data”, let alone “commodity information associated with real-time behavior data”. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “wherein the marketing content is related to the commodity information associated with real-time behavior data…the landing page including the multiple merchants” will be interpreted as being “wherein the marketing content is related to the commodity information … the landing page including the offers from the multiple merchants”.
Dependent claim 9 is similarly rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 8.
v Claims 9 and 20 recite the phrase “wherein: the marketing content includes the landing page corresponding to a marketing notification message; the landing page is generated through a visual construction system; and the user behavior data is collected by adding the one or more anchors in the landing page” and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. First, the phase “the landing page corresponding to a marketing notification message” has insufficient antecedent basis. Second, claims 1 and 13 includes a step of acquiring user behavior data that includes behavior data generated in a first interaction of the user with the commodity information system, the first interaction including browsing commodity information”, and then subsequently determining a target user based on analyzing this information, and the subsequently generating a landing page with the one or more anchors. It appears to be logically impossible to collect “the user behavior data” (i.e., the data that is analyzed to determine the target user and then subsequently re-engage the target user with marketing content that includes a landing page) using an anchor that is added to the landing page after collection of the user behavior data. The landing page is transmitted/generated after identifying the target user, which is determined by analyzing the acquired user behavior data. The user behavior data that is acquired and analyzed therefore cannot be collected via anchors in the landing page. The metes and bounds of the claim are therefore unclear. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “wherein: the marketing content includes the landing page corresponding to a marketing notification message; the landing page is generated through a visual construction system; and the user behavior data is collected by adding the one or more anchors in the landing page will be interpreted as “wherein: the marketing content includes the landing page interaction data is collected by adding the one or more anchors in the landing page”.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
v Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valimaki (U.S. PG Pub No. 2014/0379429, December 25, 2014 - hereinafter "Valimaki”) in view of Linden et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2016/0117740, April 28, 2016 - hereinafter "Linden”)
With respect to claims 1 and 13, Valimaki teaches a method and a device comprising:
one or more processors (claim 13) ([0049]-[0050] “Computer-executable instructions comprise, for example, instructions and data which cause a general-purpose computer, special-purpose computer, or virtual computer such as a virtual machine to perform a certain function or group of functions”)
one or more memories storing thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts comprising (claim 13) ([0049]-[0050] “implemented using computer-readable media for carrying or having computer-executable instructions or data structures stored thereon.”)
acquiring user behavior data in a commodity information service system, the user behavior data including behavior data generated in a first interaction of a user with the commodity information service system, the first interaction including browsing commodity information ([0018] “the segmentation module 120 may track real-time behavior of the first and second visitors 112 and 116 during visits to the website 110 and then assign those visits to one of multiple segments based on the tracked real-time behavior. The tracked real-time behavior of a visitor may include, for example: page(s) of the website 110 interacted with by the visitor during the visit, how long each of the page(s) has focus during the visit, a number of tabs in the browser 114 or 118 that the visitor has open during the visit, interaction between the visitor and a shopping cart of the website 110, repeat interactions with page(s) of the website 110 during the visit, or some combination thereof” – the server acquires real-time browsing behavior associated with one or more users generated as they browse various webpages of a website associated with product purchases (i.e., “acquiring user behavior data in a commodity information service system, the user behavior data including behavior data generated in a first interaction of a user with the commodity information service system, the first interaction including browsing commodity information”, [0029] “the tracked real-time behavior includes repeat interactions with page(s) of the web site 110 during the visit, such as alternating interactions between a first page and a second page of the website 110 during the visit”, [0044] “the tracked real-time behavior of the first visitor… where the first visitor 112 quickly finds a product and adds the product to a shopping cart of the website 110, but then instead of purchasing the product in the shopping cart, leaves the shopping cart to continue shopping by searching for another similar product”)
filtering the user behavior data to obtain valid data, aggregating the valid data to obtain data values under a plurality of data metrics ([0018] “the segmentation module 120 may track real-time behavior of the first and second visitors 112 and 116 during visits to the website 110 and then assign those visits to one of multiple segments based on the tracked real-time behavior. The tracked real-time behavior of a visitor may include, for example: page(s) of the website 110 interacted with by the visitor during the visit, how long each of the page(s) has focus during the visit, a number of tabs in the browser 114 or 118 that the visitor has open during the visit, interaction between the visitor and a shopping cart of the website 110, repeat interactions with page(s) of the website 110 during the visit, or some combination thereof” – the webpage interaction data is a “general user behavior data stream log” and a particular user’s behavior data as they interact with the pages (i.e., user behavior data stream generated) is acquired and the system analyzes this data by filtering out certain valid data (e.g., indications of pages of focus, indications of tabs opened during visit, indications of interactions with different pages) and aggregation of this data obtain various specific metric values to determine whether to classify the user in a segment to determine whether to reengage the user (i.e., so as to determine the target user by extracting and analyzing valid data therefrom), [0029] “the tracked real-time behavior includes repeat interactions with page(s) of the web site 110 during the visit, such as alternating interactions between a first page and a second page of the website 110 during the visit”, [0044] “the tracked real-time behavior of the first visitor… where the first visitor 112 quickly finds a product and adds the product to a shopping cart of the website 110, but then instead of purchasing the product in the shopping cart, leaves the shopping cart to continue shopping by searching for another similar product”)
determining a target user having a commodity purchase intention and having difficulty in finding or deciding on a commodity according to the data values under the plurality of data metrics that match a re-engagement condition ([0028]-[0029] “segmentation module may…while the real-time behavior of the first visitor…is being tracked…the visit is assigned to…a 'needs help-stall' segment, a 'needs help-comparison' segment, or a 'needs help-backout' segment, respectively. For example, after the real-time behavior of the first visitor 112 during the visit has been tracked, the segmentation module 120 may, at one of steps 304, 306, 308, or 310, determine that the tracked real-time behavior corresponds to…the 'needs help-stall' segment, the 'needs help---comparison' segment, or the 'needs help-backout' segment…Taking the 'needs help---comparison' as an example, this segment may be considered appropriate where the tracked real-time behavior includes repeat interactions with page(s) of the web site 110 during the visit, such as alternating interactions between a first page and a second page of the website 110 during the visit.” – therefore the system analyzes the visitors page/site browsing behavior such as indications the user is alternating between two pages (i.e., analyzing the user behavior data) to determine the user should be assigned to a particular segment such as a “needs help” comparison/backout segment that indicating the user is having difficulty finding or deciding on a product while browsing the various webpages of the website (i.e., determines a target user having a commodity purchase intention and having difficulty in finding or deciding on commodities in the first service module), [0044]-[0045] “the segmentation module 120 may determine, at step 908, that the tracked real-time behavior of the first visitor 112 corresponds to a particular one of multiple segments. For example, where the first visitor 112 quickly finds a product and adds the product to a shopping cart of the website 110, but then instead of purchasing the product in the shopping cart, leaves the shopping cart to continue shopping by searching for another similar product, the segmentation module 120 may determine that this this tracked real-time behavior corresponds to the ' needs help backout' segment disclosed in FIG. 3…segmentation module 120 may, at step 910, personalize the website 110 during the visit of the first visitor 112 to the website 110 by displaying a banner on a webpage of the website 110 that invites the first visitor 112 to chat with the agent 122 of the website 110. Where the visit has been assigned to the 'needs help-backout' segment, the agent 122 may attempt to engage the visitor 112 in a chat to help resolve whatever concern is preventing the visitor 112 from completing the purchase of the product in the shopping cart” – determines that the user belongs to the ' needs help backout' segment and should be targeted for re-engagement based on the user’s browsing data (i.e., determines a target user based on the user behavior data) and the segment indicates the user has a commodity purchase intention and having difficulty in finding or deciding on commodities in the first service module)
after determining the target user, re-engaging the target user to have a second interaction with the commodity information service system, the second interaction including a purchase ([0045] “segmentation module 120 may, at step 910, personalize the website 110 during the visit of the first visitor 112 to the website 110 by displaying a banner on a webpage of the website 110 that invites the first visitor 112 to chat with the agent 122 of the website 110. Where the visit has been assigned to the 'needs help-backout' segment, the agent 122 may attempt to engage the visitor 112 in a chat to help resolve whatever concern is preventing the visitor 112 from completing the purchase of the product in the shopping cart” – therefore after classifying the user as belonging to the “'needs help-backout' segment” (i.e., after determining the target user) the system re-engages the segmented user by transmitting marketing content such as a banner ad that provides the user with additional information/webpage(s) such as those that provide chat functionality in order to persuade the user to interact with the additional information/webpage(s)/functionality and initiate a purchase with the system (i.e., re-engages the target user with a second service module of the commodity information service system so that the target user initiates a purchase in the second service module and interact therewith, [0016] “segmenting…may enable a determination as to whether a visit belongs to a segment that makes the visit a good candidate for expending the resources…in order to encourage a conversion event on the website 110. This personalization may include, among other things, inviting the visitor to take a survey related to the website 110, presenting personalized advertisements to the visitor on the website 110…inviting the visitor to a chat conversation between the human agent 122 of the website 110 and the visitor, or some combination thereof” – targeting ads to invite the user to take or survey or initiate a chat conversation are examples of re-engaging the target user with a second service module of the commodity information service system so that the target user interacts with the second service module and initiates a purchase,. [0025] “segment may allow the method 200 to focus on those visits for which a website personalization, such as a chat conversation, can make the difference between no conversion event, such as a sale ( and/or a small dollar sale) without a chat, and a successful conversion event, such as a sale (and/or a large dollar sale) with a chat”, [0034]-[0038] “The offering of chat conversations on the website 110 may be accomplished using a banner that is presented to the visitor on a webpage of the website 110…which is either clicked on by the visitor resulting in chat…the conversion event of interest is a purchase…chat conversations are properly formulated to increase sales on the website…”)
receiving offers from multiple merchants; ([0019] & [0023] & [0025] & [0044] – the system has and provides information related to multiple products/items for sale to the user and therefore the system receives offers from multiple merchants – furthermore, this product information may be provided to a user after they have been determined as a target user to re-engage and therefore the system receives these offers after determining the target user (e.g., from memory))
generating a re-engagement message ([0045] “segmentation module 120 may, at step 910, personalize the website 110 during the visit of the first visitor 112 to the website 110 by displaying a banner on a webpage of the website 110 that invites the first visitor 112 to chat with the agent 122 of the website 110. Where the visit has been assigned to the 'needs help-backout' segment, the agent 122 may attempt to engage the visitor 112 in a chat to help resolve whatever concern is preventing the visitor 112 from completing the purchase of the product in the shopping cart” – therefore after classifying the user as belonging to the “'needs help-backout' segment” (i.e., after determining the target user) the system generates a re-engagement message; [0016] “segmenting…may enable a determination as to whether a visit belongs to a segment that makes the visit a good candidate for expending the resources…in order to encourage a conversion event on the website 110. This personalization may include, among other things, inviting the visitor to take a survey related to the website 110, presenting personalized advertisements to the visitor on the website 110…inviting the visitor to a chat conversation between the human agent 122 of the website 110 and the visitor, or some combination thereof” – targeting ads to invite the user to take or survey or initiate a chat conversation are examples of a re-engagement message,. [0025] “segment may allow the method 200 to focus on those visits for which a website personalization, such as a chat conversation, can make the difference between no conversion event, such as a sale ( and/or a small dollar sale) without a chat, and a successful conversion event, such as a sale (and/or a large dollar sale) with a chat”, [0034]-[0038] “The offering of chat conversations on the website 110 may be accomplished using a banner that is presented to the visitor on a webpage of the website 110…which is either clicked on by the visitor resulting in chat…the conversion event of interest is a purchase…chat conversations are properly formulated to increase sales on the website…”)
collect interaction data indicating a user re-engagement effect ([0039] “backend system that the operator of the website 110 may use to track the outcome of the dynamic segmentation of visits…may be useful in refining segmentation rules to ensure that the segmentation…are properly formulated to encourage a conversion event on the website 110, such as increased sales” – therefore the system collects interaction data indicating a user re-engagement effect and the data metrics/thresholds used to segment the visitors are determined/adjusted based on this interaction data)
based on the interaction data, performing a flow control for delivering the re-engagement message ([0038]-[0039] “outcome of each visit…useful in refining segmentation rules…backend system that the operator of the website 110 may use to track the outcome of the dynamic segmentation of visits…may be useful in refining segmentation rules to ensure that the segmentation…are properly formulated to encourage a conversion event on the website 110, such as increased sales” – therefore the system collects interaction data indicating a user re-engagement effect and the data metrics/thresholds used to segment the visitors are determined/adjusted based on this interaction data thereby performing flow control for delivering the re-engagement message)
based on the interaction data, performing a flow control and/or user fatigue control for delivering the re-engagement message (claim 13) ([0038]-[0039] “outcome of each visit…useful in refining segmentation rules…backend system that the operator of the website 110 may use to track the outcome of the dynamic segmentation of visits…may be useful in refining segmentation rules to ensure that the segmentation…are properly formulated to encourage a conversion event on the website 110, such as increased sales” – therefore the system collects interaction data indicating a user re-engagement effect and the data metrics/thresholds used to segment the visitors are determined/adjusted based on this interaction data thereby performing flow control for delivering the re-engagement message (the option of flow control or user fatigue control only required one or the other)
Although Valimaki explains that the user is re-engaged with the second service module of the commodity information service system so that the target user initiates a purchase in the second service module, and although Valimaki suggests that users can complete purchases of products via shopping cart pages or other webpages, Valimaki does not appear to disclose that a user interacts with a purchase form (e.g., on the shopping cart page or other form on another webpage) to initiate the purchase. Further, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section of this action above, the phrase “so that the target user initiates a purchase form in the second service module and interact therewith” expresses an intended outcome of the method step of “after determining the target user, re-engaging the target user with a second service module of the commodity information service system”, and is given no patentable weight. However, even though the patentable weight given to this feature is contested, and even though it would be suitable for the Examiner to take Official Notice that it was known for shopping cart pages or other webpages to have purchase forms on them to initiate a product purchase, the Examiner will apply art to the limitation in question in an effort to expedite prosecution. Valimaki does not appear to disclose,
the second interaction including: providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity
generating a landing page associated with the re-engagement message the landing page including the multiple merchants;
adding one or more anchors to in the landing page to collect interaction data
However, Linden discloses a system for re-engaging/re-marketing target users (e.g., with a second service module of a commodity information service system so that the target user initiates a purchase in the second service module and interact therewith, such as by displaying targeted ads to the target user) ([0009]-[0011] “in response to the user interacting with third-party content (e.g., web sites… activity data to reflect interests and characteristics ( e.g., products a user views…to remarket products to the user as part of a remarketing campaign. For example, the systems and methods can remarket one or more products with which the user indicated a level of interest while interacting…can identify a specific product or type of product in which the user has expressed an interest based on activity…provide remarketing of identified products to the user…provide the user with an advertisement related to the identified product.”, see also [0039]) Linden discloses
the second interaction including: providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity (Fig 4 tag 464 shows purchase page including a purchase form the user to provide a description of the commodity, also [0035]-[0037] “system can create a variety of remarketing advertisements for a product. The advertising system can provide two or more advertisements to a user…system can deliver a remarketing advertisement associated with the product to…the user. As a more specific example, in one or more embodiments, an advertisement system can analyze a user profile and determine that a user started a purchasing process for a product on the first computing device, but did not complete the purchase…At a later time, the advertisement system may…deliver a remarketing advertisement to the second computing device with a link to a landing page through which the user may complete the purchase of the product” – therefore the system reengages the target user with targeted ad which directs them to pages to complete the purchase)
generating a landing page associated with the re-engagement message the landing page including the multiple merchants; ([0037] “the advertisement system may detect that the user is present on a second computing device, and deliver a remarketing advertisement to the second computing device with a link to a landing page through which the user may complete the purchase of the product” – the marketing content includes a landing page corresponding to a marketing notification message, Fig 4 shows the landing page includes the product information for different products (i.e., including the multiple merchants) [0155]-[0160] “product remarketing system can generate an advertisement using a template that is customized to a user… The template can define advertisement characteristics preferred by the user, such as colors, brands, price, images, prose, formality, typeface, fonts, etc…. can include content fields preferred by the user and omit other content fields. The content fields can also be defined according to user preference. For example, the template can include a limited product description field because the user 311 prefers shorter product descriptions… Another template may be customized for serving advertisements to the user 311 in a web browser. As another example, one template may be customized for serving advertisements relating to electronics, while another template may be used when serving advertisements relating to home clothing. Using the template, the product remarketing system 501 may further customize an advertisement to a user 311 in a dynamic audience 503.” – therefore the landing page is generated through a visual construction system, also see Fig 7 & [0079] which shows dynamic price/version of product which dictates the URL product link in the ad (i.e., the landing page is customized), [0181]-[0192])
adding one or more anchors to in the landing page to collect interaction data (Fig 4 tags 440a-440h shows tracking elements embedded in each page, [0125]-[0126] “the tracking element 348a may include one or more tracking pixels ( e.g., JavaScript or another piece of software code) that can cause the client device 302 to send the social networking system 304 information related to the third-party content 346a and the user 311 (e.g., the identifier 344 and the content ID 350a). Alternatively, or additionally, the tracking element 348a may be in the form of a software development kit (SDK) or other code executable on mobile device platforms… the tracking element 348a can be included in the markup language of a web site. Thus, when the content processor 342 processes the third-party content 346a (e.g., renders the content), the content processor 342 also reads and executes the tracking element 348a…tracking the user's 311 third-party content activity.” – tracking pixel or other executable code is an anchor added to the landing to track user interaction, [0160]-[0161] tracking conversion events or interactions (i.e. re-engagement effect))
Linden suggests it is advantageous to include the second interaction including: providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity, generating a landing page associated with the re-engagement message the landing page including the multiple merchants; and adding one or more anchors to in the landing page to collect interaction data, because doing so can enable for user input of information that may be required to complete a purchase for a desired product, which can enable the user to actually consummate the purchase (Fig 4 and [0035]-[0037]), and because doing so can help personalize the ad and landing page per the inferred preferences of the user which can increase the probability of the user converting (purchasing the product) and because doing so can provide for an efficient and effective mechanism for tracking user interactions (e.g., clicks, purchases) to gauge the re-engagement effectiveness of the remarketing treatments ([0037] & [0155]-[0160] & [0079] & [0125]-[0126] & [0160]-[0161]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and device of Valimaki to include providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity, generating a landing page associated with the re-engagement message the landing page including the multiple merchants; and adding one or more anchors to in the landing page to collect interaction data, as taught by Linden, because doing so can enable for user input of information that may be required to complete a purchase for a desired product, which can enable the user to actually consummate the purchase, and because doing so can help personalize the ad and landing page per the inferred preferences of the user which can increase the probability of the user converting (purchasing the product) and because doing so can provide for an efficient and effective mechanism for tracking user interactions (e.g., clicks, purchases) to gauge the re-engagement effectiveness of the remarketing treatments.
With respect to claim 2, Valimaki teaches the method of claim 1;
wherein: the behavior data includes behavior data generated by the user ([0018] “the segmentation module 120 may track real-time behavior of the first and second visitors 112 and 116 during visits to the website 110 and then assign those visits to one of multiple segments based on the tracked real-time behavior. The tracked real-time behavior of a visitor may include, for example: page(s) of the website 110 interacted with by the visitor during the visit, how long each of the page(s) has focus during the visit, a number of tabs in the browser 114 or 118 that the visitor has open during the visit, interaction between the visitor and a shopping cart of the website 110, repeat interactions with page(s) of the website 110 during the visit, or some combination thereof” – the behavior data includes behavior data generated by the user [0029] “the tracked real-time behavior includes repeat interactions with page(s) of the web site 110 during the visit, such as alternating interactions between a first page and a second page of the website 110 during the visit”, [0044] “the tracked real-time behavior of the first visitor… where the first visitor 112 quickly finds a product and adds the product to a shopping cart of the website 110, but then instead of purchasing the product in the shopping cart, leaves the shopping cart to continue shopping by searching for another similar product”)
With respect to claims 3 and 14, Valimaki teaches the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 13;
wherein the acquiring the user behavior data generated in the commodity information service system includes acquiring, from a general user behavior data stream log, a user behavior data stream to determine the target user by extracting and analyzing valid data therefrom, ([0018] “the segmentation module 120 may track real-time behavior of the first and second visitors 112 and 116 during visits to the website 110 and then assign those visits to one of multiple segments based on the tracked real-time behavior. The tracked real-time behavior of a visitor may include, for example: page(s) of the website 110 interacted with by the visitor during the visit, how long each of the page(s) has focus during the visit, a number of tabs in the browser 114 or 118 that the visitor has open during the visit, interaction between the visitor and a shopping cart of the website 110, repeat interactions with page(s) of the website 110 during the visit, or some combination thereof” – the webpage interaction data is a “general user behavior data stream log” and a particular user’s behavior data as they interact with the pages (i.e., user behavior data stream generated in the first service module) is acquired and the system analyzes this data to determine various metrics to determine whether to classify the user in a segment to determine whether to reengage the user (i.e., so as to determine the target user by extracting and analyzing valid data therefrom), [0029] “the tracked real-time behavior includes repeat interactions with page(s) of the web site 110 during the visit, such as alternating interactions between a first page and a second page of the website 110 during the visit”, [0044] “the tracked real-time behavior of the first visitor… where the first visitor 112 quickly finds a product and adds the product to a shopping cart of the website 110, but then instead of purchasing the product in the shopping cart, leaves the shopping cart to continue shopping by searching for another similar product”)
the general user behavior data stream log is being used to collect the user behavior data and provide data services for downstream applications ([0018] “real-time behavior of the first and second visitors 112 and 116 during visits to the website 110…real-time behavior of a visitor may include, for example: page(s) of the website 110 interacted with by the visitor during the visit, how long each of the page(s) has focus during the visit, a number of tabs in the browser 114 or 118 that the visitor has open during the visit, interaction between the visitor and a shopping cart of the website 110, repeat interactions with page(s) of the website 110 during the visit, or some combination thereof” – the web-browsing data generated via interaction with these various pages is a “general user behavior data stream log” used to collect the user behavior data from the first service module and it can be said to be used to provide services for “downstream applications” because it can be used for subsequent (i.e., “downstream”) system uses such as customer segmentation and/or A/B testing the re-engagement treatments (per [0026]-[0027] & [0033])
With respect to claim 4, Valimaki teaches the method of claim 1;
further comprising: acquiring the re-engagement condition, the re-engagement condition being generated by selecting from the plurality of data metrics and configuring thresholds; and ([0018] “segmentation module…assigns those visits to one of multiple segments based on…page(s) of the website 110 interacted with by the visitor during the visit, how long each of the page(s) has focus during the visit, a number of tabs in the browser 114 or 118 that the visitor has open during the visit, interaction between the visitor and a shopping cart of the website 110, repeat interactions with page(s) of the website 110 during the visit, or some combination thereof” - re-engagement condition information comprising plurality of data metrics and configuring thresholds (e.g., page visit duration to certain pages, number of interactions with one or more pages, etc.) acquired, [0029]-[0031] “Taking the 'needs help---comparison' as an example, this segment may be considered appropriate where the tracked real-time behavior includes repeat interactions with page(s) of the web site 110 during the visit, such as alternating interactions between a first page and a second page of the website 110 during the visit… some predetermined period of time has elapsed since the beginning of the visit to the website 110” – different re-engagement conditions have different re-engagement condition information such as different data metrics and/or configuring thresholds)
determining selected data metrics and configured thresholds based on user behaviors related to commodity purchase intentions and difficulty in finding or deciding on the commodity ([0039] “backend system that the operator of the website 110 may use to track the outcome of the dynamic segmentation of visits…may be useful in refining segmentation rules to ensure that the segmentation…are properly formulated to encourage a conversion event on the website 110, such as increased sales” – therefore the data metrics/thresholds used to segment the visitors are determined/adjusted based on tracked conversions in view of their initial browsing data (i.e., user behaviors related to commodity purchase intentions and difficulty in finding or deciding on commodities in the first service module))
wherein the re-engagement condition is pre-configured ([0018] “segmentation module…assigns those visits to one of multiple segments based on…page(s) of the website 110 interacted with by the visitor during the visit, how long each of the page(s) has focus during the visit, a number of tabs in the browser 114 or 118 that the visitor has open during the visit, interaction between the visitor and a shopping cart of the website 110, repeat interactions with page(s) of the website 110 during the visit, or some combination thereof” – therefore pre-configured, [0029]-[0031] “Taking the 'needs help---comparison' as an example, this segment may be considered appropriate where the tracked real-time behavior includes repeat interactions with page(s) of the web site 110 during the visit, such as alternating interactions between a first page and a second page of the website 110 during the visit… some predetermined period of time has elapsed since the beginning of the visit to the website 110” – different re-engagement conditions have different re-engagement condition information such as different data metrics and/or configuring thresholds)
With respect to claim 15, Valimaki teaches the device of claim 13;
wherein the acts further comprise: selecting data metrics from a plurality of data metrics and configured thresholds based on user behaviors related to commodity purchase intentions and difficulty in finding or deciding on commodities ([0018] “segmentation module…assigns those visits to one of multiple segments based on…page(s) of the website 110 interacted with by the visitor during the visit, how long each of the page(s) has focus during the visit, a number of tabs in the browser 114 or 118 that the visitor has open during the visit, interaction between the visitor and a shopping cart of the website 110, repeat interactions with page(s) of the website 110 during the visit, or some combination thereof” - re-engagement condition information comprising plurality of data metrics and configuring thresholds (e.g., page visit duration to certain pages, number of interactions with one or more pages, etc.) selected , [0039] “backend system that the operator of the website 110 may use to track the outcome of the dynamic segmentation of visits…may be useful in refining segmentation rules to ensure that the segmentation…are properly formulated to encourage a conversion event on the website 110, such as increased sales” – therefore the data metrics/thresholds used to segment the visitors are determined/selected from potential/historic metrics/thresholds based on tracked conversions in view of their initial browsing data (i.e., user behaviors related to commodity purchase intentions and difficulty in finding or deciding on commodities in the first service module), [0029]-[0031] “Taking the 'needs help---comparison' as an example, this segment may be considered appropriate where the tracked real-time behavior includes repeat interactions with page(s) of the web site 110 during the visit, such as alternating interactions between a first page and a second page of the website 110 during the visit… some predetermined period of time has elapsed since the beginning of the visit to the website 110” – different re-engagement conditions have different re-engagement condition information such as different data metrics and/or configuring thresholds)
generating re-engagement condition information based on the selected data metrics and configuring thresholds; and acquiring the re-engagement condition information ([0018] “segmentation module…assigns those visits to one of multiple segments based on…page(s) of the website 110 interacted with by the visitor during the visit, how long each of the page(s) has focus during the visit, a number of tabs in the browser 114 or 118 that the visitor has open during the visit, interaction between the visitor and a shopping cart of the website 110, repeat interactions with page(s) of the website 110 during the visit, or some combination thereof” - re-engagement condition information comprising plurality of data metrics and configuring thresholds (e.g., page visit duration to certain pages, number of interactions with one or more pages, etc.) generated and acquired, [0029]-[0031] “Taking the 'needs help---comparison' as an example, this segment may be considered appropriate where the tracked real-time behavior includes repeat interactions with page(s) of the web site 110 during the visit, such as alternating interactions between a first page and a second page of the website 110 during the visit… some predetermined period of time has elapsed since the beginning of the visit to the website 110” – different re-engagement conditions have different re-engagement condition information such as different data metrics and/or configuring thresholds)
With respect to claims 5 and 16, Valimaki teaches the method of claim 4 and the device of claim 15;
wherein the aggregating the valid data to obtain data values for a plurality of data metrics includes: aggregating data values under various data metrics on a user-by-user basis by analyzing the user behavior data ([0018] “the segmentation module 120 may track real-time behavior of the first and second visitors 112 and 116 during visits to the website 110 and then assign those visits to one of multiple segments based on the tracked real-time behavior. The tracked real-time behavior of a visitor may include, for example: page(s) of the website 110 interacted with by the visitor during the visit, how long each of the page(s) has focus during the visit, a number of tabs in the browser 114 or 118 that the visitor has open during the visit, interaction between the visitor and a shopping cart of the website 110, repeat interactions with page(s) of the website 110 during the visit, or some combination thereof” – therefore the system analyzes the user behavior data and aggregates data values under certain data metrics for a user (e.g., number of tabs open, number of pages they’ve interacted with, how long each user has browsed each page, etc.) and assigns the user a segment (i.e., determined the target user) by comparing these metrics to segmentation conditions (i.e., determining the target user according to the data values under the plurality of data metrics that match a re-engagement condition), [0029] “the tracked real-time behavior includes repeat interactions with page(s) of the web site 110 during the visit, such as alternating interactions between a first page and a second page of the website 110 during the visit”, [0044] “the tracked real-time behavior of the first visitor… where the first visitor 112 quickly finds a product and adds the product to a shopping cart of the website 110, but then instead of purchasing the product in the shopping cart, leaves the shopping cart to continue shopping by searching for another similar product”)
With respect to claims 6 and 17, Valimaki teaches the method of claim 1 and he device of claim 16;
wherein the re-engagement condition is adjustable, and the method further comprises in response to determining that the user re-engagement effect is not as expected, adjusting the re-engagement condition by selecting other data metrics and/or configuring other thresholds ([0039] “backend system that the operator of the website 110 may use to track the outcome of the dynamic segmentation of visits…may be useful in refining segmentation rules to ensure that the segmentation…are properly formulated to encourage a conversion event on the website 110, such as increased sales” – therefore the data metrics/thresholds used to segment the visitors (the “pre-configured re-engagement condition information) are adjustable based on tracked conversions in view of their initial browsing data (i.e., the re-engagement condition is adjusted by selecting other data metrics and/or configuring other thresholds) [0034]-[0036] “ determine whether a visit is assigned to the segment (the segmentation rules) are under inclusive or gain inappropriate visits because the segmentation rules are over inclusive…segmentation rules may be formulated such that between about 30% and 35% of the visits to the website 110 are assigned to the target segment” )
With respect to claims 8 , 18, and 19, Valimaki teaches the method of claim 1 and the device of claim 13;
further comprising: assembling a marketing content and sending the marketing content to the target user through a target marketing channel, ([0016] “personalization may include, among other things… presenting personalized advertisements to the visitor on the website 110…personalized search results…or some combination thereof..” – presenting the user with targeted ad via the webpage/site and or on a search results page (i.e., assembling a marketing content and sending the marketing content to the target through target marketing channel) to invite the user to take or survey or initiate a chat conversation are examples of re-engaging the target user with a second service module of the commodity information service system so that the target user interacts with the second service module and initiates a purchase [0045] “segmentation module 120 may, at step 910, personalize the website 110 during the visit of the first visitor 112 to the website 110 by displaying a banner on a webpage of the website 110 that invites the first visitor 112 to chat with the agent 122 of the website 110. Where the visit has been assigned to the 'needs help-backout' segment, the agent 122 may attempt to engage the visitor 112 in a chat to help resolve whatever concern is preventing the visitor 112 from completing the purchase of the product in the shopping cart”, [0034]-[0038] “The offering of chat conversations on the website 110 may be accomplished using a banner that is presented to the visitor on a webpage of the website 110…”)
wherein the marketing content is related to the commodity associated with real-time behavior data ( [0044] “the tracked real-time behavior of the first visitor… where the first visitor 112 quickly finds a product and adds the product to a shopping cart of the website 110, but then instead of purchasing the product in the shopping cart, leaves the shopping cart to continue shopping by searching for another similar product” – the real-time information used to segment the users and trigger the reengagement of the user (e.g. by transmitting the personalized ad) includes commodity information (e.g., a product they browsed and added to card but abandoned to search for similar product) and therefore the marketing content is related to (at least in response to, although a PHOSITA would understand it probably references as well) the commodity information associated with the real-time behavior)
With respect to claims 9 and 20, Valimaki and Linden teach the method of claim 8, and the device of claim 18. Although Valimaki discloses wherein the marketing content includes a personalized clickable advertisement that may be presented on a webpage of the system or in search results page, and although a PHOSITA would understand the ad could/would direct a user clicking the ad to a landing page. Valimaki does not explicitly disclose landing page. Further, although Valimaki teaches tracking user behavior on the webpages, Valimaki does not teach the mechanism used to do so. Valimaki does not appear to disclose,
wherein: the marketing content includes the landing page corresponding to a marketing notification message; the landing page is generated through a visual construction system; and
the user behavior data is collected by adding the one or more anchors in the landing page
However, Linden discloses
wherein: the marketing content includes the landing page corresponding to a marketing notification message; the landing page is generated through a visual construction system; and ([0037] “the advertisement system may detect that the user is present on a second computing device, and deliver a remarketing advertisement to the second computing device with a link to a landing page through which the user may complete the purchase of the product” – the marketing content includes a landing page corresponding to a marketing notification message, [0155]-[0160] “product remarketing system can generate an advertisement using a template that is customized to a user… The template can define advertisement characteristics preferred by the user, such as colors, brands, price, images, prose, formality, typeface, fonts, etc…. can include content fields preferred by the user and omit other content fields. The content fields can also be defined according to user preference. For example, the template can include a limited product description field because the user 311 prefers shorter product descriptions… Another template may be customized for serving advertisements to the user 311 in a web browser. As another example, one template may be customized for serving advertisements relating to electronics, while another template may be used when serving advertisements relating to home clothing. Using the template, the product remarketing system 501 may further customize an advertisement to a user 311 in a dynamic audience 503.” – therefore the landing page is generated through a visual construction system, also see Fig 7 & [0079] which shows dynamic price/version of product which dictates the URL product link in the ad (i.e., the landing page is customized), [0181]-[0192])
the user behavior data is collected by adding the one or more anchors in the landing page (Fig 4 tags 440a-440h shows tracking elements embedded in each page, [0125]-[0126] “the tracking element 348a may include one or more tracking pixels ( e.g., JavaScript or another piece of software code) that can cause the client device 302 to send the social networking system 304 information related to the third-party content 346a and the user 311 (e.g., the identifier 344 and the content ID 350a). Alternatively, or additionally, the tracking element 348a may be in the form of a software development kit (SDK) or other code executable on mobile device platforms… the tracking element 348a can be included in the markup language of a web site. Thus, when the content processor 342 processes the third-party content 346a (e.g., renders the content), the content processor 342 also reads and executes the tracking element 348a…tracking the user's 311 third-party content activity.” – tracking pixel or other executable code is an anchor added to the landing to track user interaction, [0160]-[0161] tracking conversion events or interactions (i.e. re-engagement effect))
Linden suggests it is advantageous to include wherein: the marketing content includes the landing page corresponding to a marketing notification message, the landing page is generated through a visual construction system; and the user behavior data is collected by adding the one or more anchors in the landing page, because doing so can help personalize the ad and landing page per the inferred preferences of the user which can increase the probability of the user converting (purchasing the product) and because doing so can provide for an efficient and effective mechanism for tracking user interactions (e.g., clicks, purchases) to gauge the re-engagement effectiveness of the remarketing treatments ([0037] & [0155]-[0160] & [0079] & [0125]-[0126] & [0160]-[0161]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and device of Valimaki to include wherein: the marketing content includes the landing page corresponding to a marketing notification message, the landing page is generated through a visual construction system; and the user behavior data is collected by adding the one or more anchors in the landing page, as taught by Linden, because doing so can help personalize the ad and landing page per the inferred preferences of the user which can increase the probability of the user converting (purchasing the product) and because doing so can provide for an efficient and effective mechanism for tracking user interactions (e.g., clicks, purchases) to gauge the re-engagement effectiveness of the remarketing treatments.
With respect to claim 10, Valimaki teaches one or more memories storing thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts ([0049]-[0050] comprising:
providing a plurality of alternative data metrics related to behavior data generated in a process of a user interacting with a commodity information service system by browsing commodity information; ([0039] “backend system that the operator of the website 110 may use to track the outcome of the dynamic segmentation of visits…may be useful in refining segmentation rules to ensure that the segmentation…are properly formulated to encourage a conversion event on the website 110, such as increased sales” – therefore the data metrics/thresholds used to segment the visitors (the “pre-configured re-engagement condition information) are adjustable based on tracked conversions in view of their initial browsing data (i.e., the re-engagement condition is adjusted by selecting other data metrics and/or configuring other thresholds) [0034]-[0036] “ determine whether a visit is assigned to the segment (the segmentation rules) are under inclusive or gain inappropriate visits because the segmentation rules are over inclusive…segmentation rules may be formulated such that between about 30% and 35% of the visits to the website 110 are assigned to the target segment” )
generating a re-engagement condition according to at least one selected data metric and configured threshold information; and([0018] “segmentation module…assigns those visits to one of multiple segments based on…page(s) of the website 110 interacted with by the visitor during the visit, how long each of the page(s) has focus during the visit, a number of tabs in the browser 114 or 118 that the visitor has open during the visit, interaction between the visitor and a shopping cart of the website 110, repeat interactions with page(s) of the website 110 during the visit, or some combination thereof” - re-engagement condition information comprising plurality of data metrics and configuring thresholds (e.g., page visit duration to certain pages, number of interactions with one or more pages, etc.) acquired, [0029]-[0031] “Taking the 'needs help---comparison' as an example, this segment may be considered appropriate where the tracked real-time behavior includes repeat interactions with page(s) of the web site 110 during the visit, such as alternating interactions between a first page and a second page of the website 110 during the visit… some predetermined period of time has elapsed since the beginning of the visit to the website 110” – different re-engagement conditions have different re-engagement condition information such as different data metrics and/or configuring thresholds, [0039] “backend system that the operator of the website 110 may use to track the outcome of the dynamic segmentation of visits…may be useful in refining segmentation rules to ensure that the segmentation…are properly formulated to encourage a conversion event on the website 110, such as increased sales” – therefore the data metrics/thresholds used to segment the visitors are determined/adjusted based on tracked conversions in view of their initial browsing data (i.e., user behaviors related to commodity purchase intentions and difficulty in finding or deciding on commodities in the first service module))
configuring the user re-engagement condition into a user re-engagement service ([0045] “segmentation module 120 may, at step 910, personalize the website 110 during the visit of the first visitor 112 to the website 110 by displaying a banner on a webpage of the website 110 that invites the first visitor 112 to chat with the agent 122 of the website 110. Where the visit has been assigned to the 'needs help-backout' segment, the agent 122 may attempt to engage the visitor 112 in a chat to help resolve whatever concern is preventing the visitor 112 from completing the purchase of the product in the shopping cart” – therefore after classifying the user as belonging to the “'needs help-backout' segment” (i.e., after determining the target user) the system re-engages the segmented user by transmitting marketing content such as a banner ad that provides the user with additional information/webpage(s) such as those that provide chat functionality in order to persuade the user to interact with the additional information/webpage(s)/functionality and initiate a purchase with the system (i.e., re-engages the target user with a second service module of the commodity information service system so that the target user initiates a purchase in the second service module and interact therewith, [0016] “segmenting…may enable a determination as to whether a visit belongs to a segment that makes the visit a good candidate for expending the resources…in order to encourage a conversion event on the website 110. This personalization may include, among other things, inviting the visitor to take a survey related to the website 110, presenting personalized advertisements to the visitor on the website 110…inviting the visitor to a chat conversation between the human agent 122 of the website 110 and the visitor, or some combination thereof” – targeting ads to invite the user to take or survey or initiate a chat conversation are examples of re-engaging the target user with a second service module of the commodity information service system so that the target user interacts with the second service module and initiates a purchase,. [0025] “segment may allow the method 200 to focus on those visits for which a website personalization, such as a chat conversation, can make the difference between no conversion event, such as a sale ( and/or a small dollar sale) without a chat, and a successful conversion event, such as a sale (and/or a large dollar sale) with a chat”, [0034]-[0038] “The offering of chat conversations on the website 110 may be accomplished using a banner that is presented to the visitor on a webpage of the website 110…which is either clicked on by the visitor resulting in chat…the conversion event of interest is a purchase…chat conversations are properly formulated to increase sales on the website…”)
the configuring including…receiving offers from multiple merchants; ([0019] & [0023] & [0025] & [0044] – the system has and provides information related to multiple products/items for sale to the user and therefore the system receives offers from multiple merchants – furthermore, this product information may be provided to a user after they have been determined as a target user to re-engage and therefore the system receives these offers after determining the target user (e.g., from memory))
generating…a re-engagement message ([0045] “segmentation module 120 may, at step 910, personalize the website 110 during the visit of the first visitor 112 to the website 110 by displaying a banner on a webpage of the website 110 that invites the first visitor 112 to chat with the agent 122 of the website 110. Where the visit has been assigned to the 'needs help-backout' segment, the agent 122 may attempt to engage the visitor 112 in a chat to help resolve whatever concern is preventing the visitor 112 from completing the purchase of the product in the shopping cart” – therefore after classifying the user as belonging to the “'needs help-backout' segment” (i.e., after determining the target user) the system generates a re-engagement message; [0016] “segmenting…may enable a determination as to whether a visit belongs to a segment that makes the visit a good candidate for expending the resources…in order to encourage a conversion event on the website 110. This personalization may include, among other things, inviting the visitor to take a survey related to the website 110, presenting personalized advertisements to the visitor on the website 110…inviting the visitor to a chat conversation between the human agent 122 of the website 110 and the visitor, or some combination thereof” – targeting ads to invite the user to take or survey or initiate a chat conversation are examples of a re-engagement message,. [0025] “segment may allow the method 200 to focus on those visits for which a website personalization, such as a chat conversation, can make the difference between no conversion event, such as a sale ( and/or a small dollar sale) without a chat, and a successful conversion event, such as a sale (and/or a large dollar sale) with a chat”, [0034]-[0038] “The offering of chat conversations on the website 110 may be accomplished using a banner that is presented to the visitor on a webpage of the website 110…which is either clicked on by the visitor resulting in chat…the conversion event of interest is a purchase…chat conversations are properly formulated to increase sales on the website…”)
collect interaction data indicating a user re-engagement effect ([0039] “backend system that the operator of the website 110 may use to track the outcome of the dynamic segmentation of visits…may be useful in refining segmentation rules to ensure that the segmentation…are properly formulated to encourage a conversion event on the website 110, such as increased sales” – therefore the system collects interaction data indicating a user re-engagement effect and the data metrics/thresholds used to segment the visitors are determined/adjusted based on this interaction data)
adjusting the user re-engagement condition according to the user re-engagement effect ([0039] “backend system that the operator of the website 110 may use to track the outcome of the dynamic segmentation of visits…may be useful in refining segmentation rules to ensure that the segmentation…are properly formulated to encourage a conversion event on the website 110, such as increased sales” – therefore the data metrics/thresholds used to segment the visitors (the “pre-configured re-engagement condition information) are adjustable based on tracked conversions in view of their initial browsing data (i.e., the re-engagement condition is adjusted by selecting other data metrics and/or configuring other thresholds) [0034]-[0036] “ determine whether a visit is assigned to the segment (the segmentation rules) are under inclusive or gain inappropriate visits because the segmentation rules are over inclusive…segmentation rules may be formulated such that between about 30% and 35% of the visits to the website 110 are assigned to the target segment” )
Although Valimaki explains that the user is re-engaged with the second service module of the commodity information service system so that the target user initiates a purchase in the second service module, and although Valimaki suggests that users can complete purchases of products via shopping cart pages or other webpages, Valimaki does not appear to disclose that a user interacts with a purchase form (e.g., on the shopping cart page or other form on another webpage) to initiate the purchase. Further, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section of this action above, the phrase “so that the target user initiates a purchase form in the second service module and interact therewith” expresses an intended outcome of the method step of “after determining the target user, re-engaging the target user with a second service module of the commodity information service system”, and is given no patentable weight. However, even though the patentable weight given to this feature is contested, and even though it would be suitable for the Examiner to take Official Notice that it was known for shopping cart pages or other webpages to have purchase forms on them to initiate a product purchase, the Examiner will apply art to the limitation in question in an effort to expedite prosecution. Valimaki does not appear to disclose,
providing, in response to a request to configure a user re-engagement condition, a plurality of alternative data metrics related to behavior data generated in a process of a user interacting with a commodity information service system by browsing commodity information
providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity
generating a landing page associated with the re-engagement message the landing page including the multiple merchants;
adding one or more anchors to in the landing page to collect interaction data
However, Linden discloses a system for re-engaging/re-marketing target users (e.g., with a second service module of a commodity information service system so that the target user initiates a purchase in the second service module and interact therewith, such as by displaying targeted ads to the target user) ([0009]-[0011] “in response to the user interacting with third-party content (e.g., web sites… activity data to reflect interests and characteristics ( e.g., products a user views…to remarket products to the user as part of a remarketing campaign. For example, the systems and methods can remarket one or more products with which the user indicated a level of interest while interacting…can identify a specific product or type of product in which the user has expressed an interest based on activity…provide remarketing of identified products to the user…provide the user with an advertisement related to the identified product.”, see also [0039]) Linden discloses
providing, in response to a request to configure a user re-engagement condition, a plurality of alternative data metrics related to behavior data generated in a process of a user interacting with a commodity information service system by browsing commodity information ([0071]-[0072] “dynamic audience…can identify groups (e.g., interest groups) of users between users who viewed the product in a general category, viewed the product page, interacted with the product page (e.g., selected a “read more” option on the product page), compared the product with other products, commented on the product, shared the product with other users, added the product to a virtual shopping cart…As the advertiser selects, deselects, and/or otherwise modifies parameters for their remarketing campaign, the number of users in each group provided to the advertiser can update be updated by the audience manager 116. In addition, the audience manager 116 can assist the advertiser in narrowing the number of users in a dynamic audience by only including users who meet or exceed a threshold interest level in the product (e.g., target only users who added the product to a shopping cart). Further, the audience manager 116 can allow the advertiser to divide the focus of a remarketing campaign among the different interest groups. For example, the advertiser may request to concentrate the majority of a remarketing campaign on users who have recently added a product (e.g., a drill) to a shopping cart while reducing focus to users who have only viewed a category (e.g., hardware) associated with the product” – therefore the advertiser is provided with a plurality of alternative data metrics related to behavior data generated in a process of a user interacting with a commodity information service system by browsing commodity information (e.g., viewed a particular product page once, selected a “read more” option, added the product to cart) for selection to configure a re-engagement condition, [0145]-[0150] “advertiser can send a remarketing request to the product remarketing system…indicate which products the advertiser desires to remarket…Upon receiving the remarketing request, the product remarketing system 501 may determine a dynamic audience 503…can identify dynamic audience information (e.g., common attributes and characteristics of users within a dynamic audience 503)… as well as the number of users for whom an interest is detected for a particular level of interest in the product (e.g., the number of users who viewed, selected, requested additional information, compared, commented, added to cart, removed from cart, added to a wish list, etc. for the product). As described above, and as shown in step 516, the product remarketing system 501 can provide the dynamic audience information to the advertiser 508…the advertiser 508 can optionally refine the remarketing campaign based on the dynamic audience information…may desire to add additional audience filter criteria…Upon applying the additional audience filter criteria, the product remarketing system 501 can optionally provide updated dynamic audience information to the advertiser 508, shown in step 520. The process of providing dynamic audience information, refining the dynamic audience 503, and providing updated dynamic audience information to the advertiser 508 can be repeated.” – therefore the plurality of alternative data metrics the advertiser can select to configured the dynamic audience that will be retargeted can be provided in response to a remarketing request (i.e., a request to configure a user re-engagement condition), [0066]-[0067] “a dynamic audience can be created upon receiving a request from an advertiser for a remarketing campaign. In one embodiment, a dynamic audience can include users that have expressed interest in a product on the advertiser's web site (e.g., a merchant web page associated with the advertiser) or who will express interest in the product during the remarketing campaign. Further, the advertiser may define membership filters to users in a dynamic audience according to their preferences for a remarketing campaign with which the advertiser is involved…when an advertiser requests a remarketing campaign for the product, the audience manager 116 can…narrow the number of users in a dynamic audience when an advertiser requests customization of a dynamic audience (e.g., filter membership in a dynamic audience”, [0049] “third-party content activity data 128 includes data from multiple third-party merchants….merchant web sites…may include information from each of the merchant web sites. Further, the third-party content activity data 128 may include the total time the user views the product on each site, or total time viewing the product. The third-party content activity data 128 can be used to determine, based on the number of sites the user viewed the product on and the time the user spent looking at the product, the interest level of the user in the product” - alternative data metrics related to behavior data generated in a process of a user interacting with a commodity information service system by browsing commodity information)
providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity (Fig 4 tag 464 shows purchase page including a purchase form the user to provide a description of the commodity, also [0035]-[0037] “system can create a variety of remarketing advertisements for a product. The advertising system can provide two or more advertisements to a user…system can deliver a remarketing advertisement associated with the product to…the user. As a more specific example, in one or more embodiments, an advertisement system can analyze a user profile and determine that a user started a purchasing process for a product on the first computing device, but did not complete the purchase…At a later time, the advertisement system may…deliver a remarketing advertisement to the second computing device with a link to a landing page through which the user may complete the purchase of the product” – therefore the system reengages the target user with targeted ad which directs them to pages to complete the purchase)
generating a landing page associated with the re-engagement message the landing page including the multiple merchants; ([0037] “the advertisement system may detect that the user is present on a second computing device, and deliver a remarketing advertisement to the second computing device with a link to a landing page through which the user may complete the purchase of the product” – the marketing content includes a landing page corresponding to a marketing notification message, Fig 4 shows the landing page includes the product information for different products (i.e., including the multiple merchants) [0155]-[0160] “product remarketing system can generate an advertisement using a template that is customized to a user… The template can define advertisement characteristics preferred by the user, such as colors, brands, price, images, prose, formality, typeface, fonts, etc…. can include content fields preferred by the user and omit other content fields. The content fields can also be defined according to user preference. For example, the template can include a limited product description field because the user 311 prefers shorter product descriptions… Another template may be customized for serving advertisements to the user 311 in a web browser. As another example, one template may be customized for serving advertisements relating to electronics, while another template may be used when serving advertisements relating to home clothing. Using the template, the product remarketing system 501 may further customize an advertisement to a user 311 in a dynamic audience 503.” – therefore the landing page is generated through a visual construction system, also see Fig 7 & [0079] which shows dynamic price/version of product which dictates the URL product link in the ad (i.e., the landing page is customized), [0181]-[0192])
adding one or more anchors to in the landing page to collect interaction data (Fig 4 tags 440a-440h shows tracking elements embedded in each page, [0125]-[0126] “the tracking element 348a may include one or more tracking pixels ( e.g., JavaScript or another piece of software code) that can cause the client device 302 to send the social networking system 304 information related to the third-party content 346a and the user 311 (e.g., the identifier 344 and the content ID 350a). Alternatively, or additionally, the tracking element 348a may be in the form of a software development kit (SDK) or other code executable on mobile device platforms… the tracking element 348a can be included in the markup language of a web site. Thus, when the content processor 342 processes the third-party content 346a (e.g., renders the content), the content processor 342 also reads and executes the tracking element 348a…tracking the user's 311 third-party content activity.” – tracking pixel or other executable code is an anchor added to the landing to track user interaction, [0160]-[0161] tracking conversion events or interactions (i.e. re-engagement effect))
Linden suggests it is advantageous to include providing, in response to a request to configure a user re-engagement condition, a plurality of alternative data metrics related to behavior data generated in a process of a user interacting with a commodity information service system by browsing commodity information, providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity, generating a landing page associated with the re-engagement message the landing page including the multiple merchants; and adding one or more anchors to in the landing page to collect interaction data, because doing so can enable for user input of information that may be required to complete a purchase for a desired product, which can enable the user to actually consummate the purchase (Fig 4 and [0035]-[0037]), and because doing so can help personalize the ad and landing page per the inferred preferences of the user which can increase the probability of the user converting (purchasing the product) and because doing so can provide for an efficient and effective mechanism for tracking user interactions (e.g., clicks, purchases) to gauge the re-engagement effectiveness of the remarketing treatments ([0037] & [0155]-[0160] & [0079] & [0125]-[0126] & [0160]-[0161]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the memories of Valimaki to include providing, in response to a request to configure a user re-engagement condition, a plurality of alternative data metrics related to behavior data generated in a process of a user interacting with a commodity information service system by browsing commodity information, providing a purchase form for the user to provide a description of the commodity, generating a landing page associated with the re-engagement message the landing page including the multiple merchants; and adding one or more anchors to in the landing page to collect interaction data, as taught by Linden, because doing so can enable for user input of information that may be required to complete a purchase for a desired product, which can enable the user to actually consummate the purchase, and because doing so can help personalize the ad and landing page per the inferred preferences of the user which can increase the probability of the user converting (purchasing the product) and because doing so can provide for an efficient and effective mechanism for tracking user interactions (e.g., clicks, purchases) to gauge the re-engagement effectiveness of the remarketing treatments.
With respect to claim 11, Valimaki teaches the one or more memories according to claim 10;
wherein the acts further comprise: determining, after acquiring user behavior data and aggregating the user behavior data into data values under a plurality of plurality of data metrics, ([0018] “the segmentation module 120 may track real-time behavior of the first and second visitors 112 and 116 during visits to the website 110 and then assign those visits to one of multiple segments based on the tracked real-time behavior. The tracked real-time behavior of a visitor may include, for example: page(s) of the website 110 interacted with by the visitor during the visit, how long each of the page(s) has focus during the visit, a number of tabs in the browser 114 or 118 that the visitor has open during the visit, interaction between the visitor and a shopping cart of the website 110, repeat interactions with page(s) of the website 110 during the visit, or some combination thereof” – the webpage interaction data is a “general user behavior data stream log” and a particular user’s behavior data as they interact with the pages (i.e., user behavior data stream generated) is acquired and the system analyzes this data by filtering out certain valid data (e.g., indications of pages of focus, indications of tabs opened during visit, indications of interactions with different pages) and aggregation of this data obtain various specific metric values to determine whether to classify the user in a segment to determine whether to reengage the user (i.e., so as to determine the target user by extracting and analyzing valid data therefrom), [0029] “the tracked real-time behavior includes repeat interactions with page(s) of the web site 110 during the visit, such as alternating interactions between a first page and a second page of the website 110 during the visit”, [0044] “the tracked real-time behavior of the first visitor… where the first visitor 112 quickly finds a product and adds the product to a shopping cart of the website 110, but then instead of purchasing the product in the shopping cart, leaves the shopping cart to continue shopping by searching for another similar product”)
a target user having commodity purchase intention and having difficulty in finding or deciding on a commodity according to matches of the re-engagement condition; and ([0028]-[0029] “segmentation module may…while the real-time behavior of the first visitor…is being tracked…the visit is assigned to…a 'needs help-stall' segment, a 'needs help-comparison' segment, or a 'needs help-backout' segment, respectively. For example, after the real-time behavior of the first visitor 112 during the visit has been tracked, the segmentation module 120 may, at one of steps 304, 306, 308, or 310, determine that the tracked real-time behavior corresponds to…the 'needs help-stall' segment, the 'needs help---comparison' segment, or the 'needs help-backout' segment…Taking the 'needs help---comparison' as an example, this segment may be considered appropriate where the tracked real-time behavior includes repeat interactions with page(s) of the web site 110 during the visit, such as alternating interactions between a first page and a second page of the website 110 during the visit.” – therefore the system analyzes the visitors page/site browsing behavior such as indications the user is alternating between two pages (i.e., analyzing the user behavior data) to determine the user should be assigned to a particular segment such as a “needs help” comparison/backout segment that indicating the user is having difficulty finding or deciding on a product while browsing the various webpages of the website (i.e., determines a target user having a commodity purchase intention and having difficulty in finding or deciding on commodities in the first service module), [0044]-[0045] “the segmentation module 120 may determine, at step 908, that the tracked real-time behavior of the first visitor 112 corresponds to a particular one of multiple segments. For example, where the first visitor 112 quickly finds a product and adds the product to a shopping cart of the website 110, but then instead of purchasing the product in the shopping cart, leaves the shopping cart to continue shopping by searching for another similar product, the segmentation module 120 may determine that this this tracked real-time behavior corresponds to the ' needs help backout' segment disclosed in FIG. 3…segmentation module 120 may, at step 910, personalize the website 110 during the visit of the first visitor 112 to the website 110 by displaying a banner on a webpage of the website 110 that invites the first visitor 112 to chat with the agent 122 of the website 110. Where the visit has been assigned to the 'needs help-backout' segment, the agent 122 may attempt to engage the visitor 112 in a chat to help resolve whatever concern is preventing the visitor 112 from completing the purchase of the product in the shopping cart” – determines that the user belongs to the ' needs help backout' segment and should be targeted for re-engagement based on the user’s browsing data (i.e., determines a target user based on the user behavior data) and the segment indicates the user has a commodity purchase intention and having difficulty in finding or deciding on commodities in the first service module)
With respect to claim 12, Valimaki teaches the one or more memories according to claim 11;
wherein the user re-engagement condition is adjustable, so that when the user re-engagement effect is not as expected, the re-engagement condition is adjusted by selecting other data metrics and/or configuring other thresholds ([0039] “backend system that the operator of the website 110 may use to track the outcome of the dynamic segmentation of visits…may be useful in refining segmentation rules to ensure that the segmentation…are properly formulated to encourage a conversion event on the website 110, such as increased sales” – therefore the data metrics/thresholds used to segment the visitors (the “pre-configured re-engagement condition information) are adjustable based on tracked conversions in view of their initial browsing data (i.e., the re-engagement condition is adjusted by selecting other data metrics and/or configuring other thresholds) [0034]-[0036] “ determine whether a visit is assigned to the segment (the segmentation rules) are under inclusive or gain inappropriate visits because the segmentation rules are over inclusive…segmentation rules may be formulated such that between about 30% and 35% of the visits to the website 110 are assigned to the target segment” )
v Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valimaki in view of Linden, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Little (U.S. PG Pub No. 2008/0294523 , November 27, 2008- hereinafter "Little”)
With respect to claim 7, Valimaki and Linden teach the method of claim 1. Valimaki does not appear to disclose,
performing a user fatigue control in a process of re-engaging the target user
However, Little discloses
performing a user fatigue control in a process of re-engaging the target user ([0040] “the advertiser 110 may provide frequency capping parameters, for example to restrict the number of times a particular user 114 is shown a particular ad, either overall or within a selected time period. The present retargeting system 100 permits the advertiser 110 to control the frequency with which a user 114 is presented with the same information via multiple publisher systems 11”, [0024] “the retargeting system 100 can increase the effectiveness of the retargeting services, for example by controlling the frequency with which users 114 are exposed to particular information, such as an advertisement”)
Little suggests it is advantageous to include performing a user fatigue control in a process of re-engaging the target user, because doing so can increase the effectiveness of the remarketing efforts which can increase the probability of the user converting (purchasing the product) ([0024] & [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Valimaki in view of Linden to include performing a user fatigue control in a process of re-engaging the target user, as taught by Little, because doing so can increase the effectiveness of the remarketing efforts which can increase the probability of the user converting (purchasing the product).
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Venkatakrishnan (U.S. PG Pub No. 2022/0148057, May 12, 2022) teaches remarketing a user based on a previous visit to a specific URL
Ran (U.S. PG Pub No. 2007/0118435 May 24, 2007) teaches a shopping mode that enables a user to fill out a form describing a product they are interested in buying and wherein sellers of the product can generate proposals to sell the product to the user.
Courchesne et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2009/0222356, September 3, 2009) teaches a shopping mode that enables a user to fill out a form describing a product they are interested in buying and wherein sellers of the product can generate proposals to sell the product to the user.
Merriman et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2002/0082923, June 27, 2002) teaches a system for tracking user behavior while browsing various product webpages and determining whether the user meets targeting criteria to retarget with advertisements.
Perevodchikov et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,138,631 B1, October 5, 2021) teaches identifying an optimal combination of browsing metric and metric thresholds to use for remarketing users
“32 Simple Reasons Remarketing Isn’t Working [How To Fix It]” (Fitkin, Kim; published on June 3, 2023 at https://www.klientboost.com/ppc/remarketing-not-working/ as captured by Internet Wayback Machine and retrieved by the Examiner on October 24, 2025)
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-3948. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621