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 .
This communication is in response to application 18/940,996 filed on 11/08/2024 Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are examined. Claims 1-20 are rejected as follows
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is over 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 and 13-22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 13, 16 and 17 recite the limitation "the brand website”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, “the brand website” is interpreted as any website.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "The system of claim 1". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The independent claim is a method not a system. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “The method of Claim 1”.
Claims 13-16 recites the limitation "The system of claim 12". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The independent claim is a method not a system. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “The method of Claim 12”.
Claims 18-20 recite the limitation "The method of claim 17". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The independent claim is a system not a method. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “The system of Claim 17”.
Claims 21-22 are rejected due to the inadequacies of the claims upon which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
A “brand” or “individual” owning the website does not limit the computing system. The nonfunctional descriptive material does not carry patentable weight and does not further limit the claim on which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) with no practical application and without significantly more.
Claims 1-2 and 12-16 are methods, and Claims 3-11 and 17-22 are systems. Thus, each claim on its face is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 USC 101. However, claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). The independent claims (1, 3, 12, and 17) recite a method and systems to display content of an affiliate marketer or influencer on a seller website to promote sales. These claim elements are being interpreted as commercial and legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities, and business relations). The claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites an “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed towards a method and systems to implement the identified abstract idea of advertising on a seller website with affiliate or influencer content to promote sales in a general computer environment. For instance, the additional elements or combination of elements other than the abstract idea itself include the elements such as a “computer” recited at a high level of generality. These elements do not themselves amount to an improvement to the interface or computer, to a technology or another technical field.
The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The independent claims recite the additional elements “a computer” and “one or more servers”. These claim elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general computer environment. The machines merely act as a modality to implement the abstract idea and are not indicative of integration into a practical application (i.e., the additional elements are simply used as a tool to perform the abstract idea), see MPEP 2106.05(f).
In regards to the dependent claims
Claims 3, 4-11, 13-16, and 18-22 introduce no new additional abstract ideas or new additional elements and do not impact analysis under 35 USC 101
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ellen (US 9854064 B2).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 12 and 17, (Substantially similar in scope and language, Ellen teaches:
A method for displaying personalized creative content of an influencer or affiliate on a website of an offer owner in real-time via a web browser on a computer of a user that arrives on a webpage of the offer owner website having been referred by the influencer or affiliate via a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), the method configured to be executed by a system including one or more servers, the method comprising: loading JavaScript onto the webpage of the website upon arrival of the user to the webpage of the website via the URL; [(Column 2, Lines 44-46) “Inserting a single line of JavaScript® into the website's parent header or template enables the website optimization system to integrate on a one-time basis”]
detecting if the user has arrived at the webpage of the website by a referral from the influencer or affiliate by extracting an identifier from the URL of the website; [(Column 13, Lines 33-36) “Environmental attributes: IP address, PC configuration, browser type Contextual attributes: time of visit, referring URL, traffic source, keyword, affiliate”]
if the identifier is associated with the influencer or affiliate, fetching configuration information that is associated with the influencer or affiliate from the one or more servers, wherein the configuration information includes personalized creative content of the influencer or affiliate; [(Columns 6, Line 65 - Column 7, Line 3) “Personalisation Criteria—Visitors' personal data that is taken from Maxymiser Customer's website, e.g. (name, age, gender, etc.) It can be taken from any input field on Maxymiser Customer's website by Maxymiser JavaScript® or from parameter specified in URL.”]
processing, on the browser of the user, the configuration information to change content on the website to display the personalized created content, the processing step including adjusting a DOM of the webpage of the website to reflect the personalized creative content [(Column 2 Lines 56-59) “For each web page where a unique URL is present, the system enables the mapping of identifying factors in the URL string to variations of data, functions or content assets via the system's web based console”, (Column 3 Lines 1-7) “These mappings are then delivered over a computer network to a content generator module which is able to inject the variations into web browser applications using JavaScript® calls to the source of the new data, functions or content variant assets. Changes generated by the content generator module can then be viewed by specified viewers' IP addresses or all of the websites visitors.”]
and using a MutationObserver that monitors the DOM for both the presence and readiness of target elements, enabling precise timing for manipulation of the DOM to display personalized creative content; [(Column 9, Lines 45-54) “Supplementary libraries—JavaScript® libraries used for the execution of Maxymiser functions, including: mmevents.js library for special Action tracking mmpa.js library for content assist functionality support mmcore-attrs.js for segmentation custom criteria tracking mmcore.DOM.js library that simplifies work with DOM model Content of page—HTML content of alternative variants, CSS files and JavaScript® code used in alternative variants”, (Column 15, Lines 16-21) “ Continuous Optimization uses self-learning algorithms and determines which variations of content should be shown to each visitor.”]
and displaying the personalized created content via the browser of the user based on the personalized creative content. [(Column 3 Lines 1-7) “These mappings are then delivered over a computer network to a content generator module which is able to inject the variations into web browser applications using JavaScript® calls to the source of the new data, functions or content variant assets. Changes generated by the content generator module can then be viewed by specified viewers' IP addresses or all of the websites visitors”]
Regarding Claims 2, 4, 13 and 19, Ellen further teaches:
wherein the method further comprising decoding and parsing the configuration information into updates that need to be made to the website to display the personalized creative content in the configuration information via the browser of the user. [(Column 9, Lines 58-62) “Configuration scripts—These are custom JS code functions used to adjust the main and supplementary libraries to particular website peculiarities or requirements. The main purposes of these scripts are: Update settings of mmcore.js library on the fly”]
Regarding Claim 5, Ellen further teaches:
wherein the processing step including adjusting a DOM of the website to reflect the personalized creative content. [(Column 9, Lines 42-62) “Mmcore.js/opc library—this is the main library that performs key operations, like content replacement, Action tracking and so on… Supplementary libraries—JavaScript® libraries used for the execution of Maxymiser functions, including: mmevents.js library for special Action tracking mmpa.js library for content assist functionality support mmcore-attrs.js for segmentation custom criteria tracking mmcore.DOM.js library that simplifies work with DOM model Content of page—HTML content of alternative variants, CSS files and JavaScript® code used in alternative variants… Configuration scripts—These are custom JS code functions used to adjust the main and supplementary libraries to particular website peculiarities or requirements. The main purposes of these scripts are: Update settings of mmcore.js library on the fly”]
Regarding Claims 6, 14 and 20, Ellen further teaches:
wherein the URL is included in a website, email, video, podcast, application, direct mail or user manual type-in. [(Column 2 Lines 56-59) “For each web page where a unique URL is present, the system enables the mapping of identifying factors in the URL string to variations of data, functions or content assets via the system's web based console.”]
Regarding Claim 7, 16 and 21, Ellen further teaches:
wherein the method further includes downloading the JavaScript from the one or more servers for loading it onto the website upon arrival of the user to the website. [(Column 2 Lines 40-46) “Uniquely this implementation of the invention enables each visitor's browser application to load a controlled and changing array of assets without ongoing changes to the code contained in the website's native architecture or each page source code. Inserting a single line of JavaScript® into the website's parent header or template enables the website optimisation system to integrate on a one-time basis.”]
Regarding Claim 8, 15, and 22, Ellen further teaches:
wherein the method further includes receiving the personalized creative content created so as to generate the configuration information with the personalized creative content. [(Column 3, Lines 1-5) “These mappings are then delivered over a computer network to a content generator module which is able to inject the variations into web browser applications using JavaScript® calls to the source of the new data, functions or content variant assets”;
Regarding Claim 11, Ellen further teaches:
wherein the offer owner’s website is a brand owner’s website or an individual’s website. [The limitations recite nonfunctional descriptive material that does not carry patentable weight;]
Regarding Claim 18, Ellen further teaches:
wherein the personalized creative content is stored in a configuration file configured to be fetched from the one or more servers to make changes that need to be made to the website to display the personalized creative content via the browser of the user. [(Column 3, Lines 1-5) “These mappings are then delivered over a computer network to a content generator module which is able to inject the variations into web browser applications using JavaScript® calls to the source of the new data, functions or content variant assets”, (Column 5, Lines 5-6) “Content assets can be stored on a distributed network of servers, such as edge servers”]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellen (US 9854064 B2) in view of Schwalb (US 20250117824 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Ellen teaches the limitations of Claim 3 and further teaches:
wherein the configuration information is generated by fetching customizations of the influencer for the personalize creative content [(Column 3, Lines 1-5) “These mappings are then delivered over a computer network to a content generator module which is able to inject the variations into web browser applications using JavaScript® calls to the source of the new data, functions or content variant assets.]
However, Ellen does not teach but Schwalb does teach:
and removing similar customizations to reduce a size of the configuration information. [(Para 0053) “Duplicate checker 218 can, in some implementations, remove duplicate insights that are generated by the insight extraction core”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of displaying customized content on a website (Ellen) with the method of removing duplicates (Schwalb). One of ordinary skill would have recognized the benefit of removing duplicates to reduce storage size and streamline presented content.
Regarding Claim 10, Ellen in view of Schwalb teach the limitations of claim 9, Ellen further teaches:
wherein the configuration information is generated by fetching customizations of the influencer for the personalize creative content [(Column 3, Lines 1-5) “These mappings are then delivered over a computer network to a content generator module which is able to inject the variations into web browser applications using JavaScript® calls to the source of the new data, functions or content variant assets.]
However, Ellen does not teach but Schwalb does teach:
and sorting an order of the customizations based on a priority. [(Para 0030) “In addition, recommended insights may be ranked, ordered, or otherwise organized in the analytics display”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of displaying customized content on a website (Ellen) with the method of organizing content based on priority. One of ordinary skill would have recognized prioritizing content would create better engagement and streamline the presented content.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Truong, whose telephone number is 703-756-5883. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (EST)
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Uber SPE can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.L.T./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626