DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts that the combination of Christensen and Jain fails to teach “the correlation being determined based on a target object in a first object set corresponding to the content presentation page, and the target object being an object matching the target virtual resource.”
Examiner maintains that Christensen meets this limitation. In Christensen, Fig. 13 shows a presentation page displaying a set of objects (i.e. the object set corresponds to the page). The user can select a target object (e.g. Clothes) from the set, resulting in the system determining and the displaying resources that match the selected target object (Fig. 14).
In the present claim, the recited correspondence is between a content presentation page and a virtual resource. In Christensen, Fig. 14 shows the virtual resources (coupons) that correspond to the selected object on the page displayed in Fig. 13, thereby meeting the limitation. This step is accomplished by determining the correlation as detailed above. Christensen therefore maps to a reasonably broad construction of the claimed language.
Applicant argues that Christensen’s system is a static distribution model, lacking “dynamic correlation” between a content presentation page and a target virtual resource, and failing to calculate “a numerical correlation based on object matching, let alone doing so based on a dynamic content presentation page.”
First, a “dynamic” or “numerical” correlation per se is not required by the claim. The claim does not recite any type of numerical operation or calculation of a correlation—it merely requires the “determination” of a correlation. This is a broad formulation and reads on the determination made in Christensen—i.e. determining that certain coupons should be shown when a category is selected, i.e. determining that they are correlated to the prior presentation page.
Secondly, Christensen is dynamic in that the display is changed to show a particular set of resources, in response to user selection/input. The user in Christensen selecting a category or product (e.g. Fig. 12, 13) is analogous to the user searching for a commodity in the present invention. In both methods, the user input is evaluated and matching (correlated) coupons are determined and displayed. Both systems are dynamic in this sense and Christensen is analogous.
Regarding Jain, Applicant argues that Jain is focused on refining user profile data, rather than analyzing the composition of a page. However, Jain is only cited for the use of a threshold to determine whether data items are sufficiently related. Christensen already teaches the determination of correlation as explained above, and Jain simply teaches the explicit use of a relevancy threshold between data items. One skilled in the art could apply the threshold concept taught in Jain to the relation between items in Christensen Fig. 13, to the coupons in Fig. 14. Also as noted above, the present claim does not recite how the threshold is determined or other details of the calculation, so these details need not be present in Jain (or Christensen) to meet the claim.
Finally, Applicant refers to the present invention improving efficiency. While this may be a potential benefit of the claimed features, such an effect does not amount to a distinguishing feature of the present claims.
For these reasons, the rejections are maintained.
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 1-3, 6, 9-14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen, US 2003/0088461 in view of Jain et al., US 2015/0058136.
Claims 1 and 12 and 20. Christensen teaches an interaction method, comprising:
a processor and memory [paras. 73, 152, 154];
in response to a content presentation page [Figs. 6, 12, 13, paras. 94-96] and a target virtual resource [virtual coupon, Figs. 6, 13, paras. 94-96] being closely related [coupons most closely related to categories on presentation page of Figs. 12 or 13; Figs. 6, 12-14, para. 94-96], displaying, in the content presentation page, resource information corresponding to the target virtual resource [coupons are displayed, Figs. 6, 12-14, paras. 94-96], the correlation being determined based on a target object in a first object set corresponding to the content presentation page, and the target object being an object matching the target virtual resource [target object reads on coupons/icons in Fig. 14, which match products in set shown in Figs. 6, 13, which correspond to categories of Figs. 6, 12; paras. 94-96; see Response to Arguments above]; and
displaying a second object set matching the target virtual resource based on a predetermined operation on the resource information [scroll bar on right indicates user input for scrolling down in the window to view beyond the first 12 results, Fig. 14, paras. 94-96].
While Christensen teaches determining virtual resources that are closely related to a content presentation page, it does not use a threshold per se.
Jain teaches a coupon system wherein display items are determined based on a correlation between a content presentation page [results] and a target virtual resource [virtual coupon] being greater than a threshold [coupons are matched to search results based on exceeding a relevancy threshold, paras. 37, 42, 47, 64; note that Jain is only cited for the use of a threshold generally, since Christensen teaches the correlation itself as cited above; see Response to Arguments above].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a threshold in order to eliminate less-relevant results. Those that do not exceed a threshold can be deleted (or pointers to them can be deleted), saving memory space and processing resources. A threshold is also easily adjusted in order to tailor the number of results based on how many results are convenient to display.
2 and 13. Christensen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the content presentation page is presented based on a received search request [user selects (searches) a category from menu of Fig. 12], and the target virtual resource is determined by:
determining a category matching a query item comprised in the search request [baby category is determined and displayed, Fig. 13, para. 95];
determining a candidate virtual resource set corresponding to the category [Fig. 14 shows a set of virtual resource candidates (coupons), Fig. 14]; and
determining the target virtual resource from the candidate virtual resource set [desired (target) resource is determined using the select button at top of Fig. 14, paras. 94-96].
3 and 14. Christensen teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining the target virtual resource from the candidate virtual resource set comprises:
determining the correlation between the content presentation page and the candidate virtual resource set [e.g. the candidate coupons are determined and displayed for the Baby/Hygiene/Cosmetic categories on the presentation page, Figs. 6, 12-14, paras. 94-96]; and
determining the target virtual resource [consumer selects a coupon, para. 100] from the candidate virtual resource set that are related to the content presentation page is greater than the threshold [determining coupons most closely related to categories on presentation page of Figs. 12 or 13; Figs. 6, 12-14, para. 94-96].
Jain teaches a coupon system wherein display items are determined based on a correlation between a content presentation page [results] and a target virtual resource [virtual coupon] being greater than a threshold [coupons are matched to search results based on exceeding a relevancy threshold, paras. 37, 42, 47, 64; note that Jain is only cited for the use of a threshold generally, since Christensen teaches the correlation itself as cited above].
6 and 17. Christensen teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether the content presentation page comprises an object [system determines (in order to display, product categories/subcategories; these categories are objects, Figs. 12-14]; and
in response to the content presentation page comprising the object, determining whether the content presentation page and the target virtual resource are related [determining coupons most closely related to categories on presentation page of Figs. 12 or 13; Figs. 6, 12-14, para. 94-96].
Jain teaches a coupon system wherein display items are determined based on a correlation between a content presentation page [results] and a target virtual resource [virtual coupon] being greater than a threshold [coupons are matched to search results based on exceeding a relevancy threshold, paras. 37, 42, 47, 64; note that Jain is only cited for the use of a threshold generally, since Christensen teaches the correlation itself as cited above].
9. Christensen teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying, in the content presentation page, description information of at least one object, the description information indicating whether the at least one object matches the target virtual resource [e.g. in Fig. 12, Hygiene/Cosmetic describes the target virtual resources in Fig. 14, paras. 94-96].
10. Christensen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the resource information comprises first resource information, and the method further comprises:
displaying, in the content presentation page, second resource information corresponding to a further virtual resource [50 cent coupon is a first resource; $1 coupon is a second virtual resource, Fig. 14] based on a predetermined operation on the content presentation page, wherein the predetermined operation comprises:
a first operation for refreshing the content presentation page; or a second operation for sliding the content presentation page to view an additional search result [e.g. using scroll bar to right in Fig. 14 to slide the results page].
11. Christensen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the target object comprises a commodity object [e.g. facial tissues, Fig. 14], and the target virtual resource indicates a virtual benefit associated with the commodity object [e.g. 50 cents off benefit on tissues, Fig. 14].
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights