DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 23, 2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application on December 23, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: According to MPEP 608.01(m), the present Office practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence starting with “I (or we) claim,” “The invention claimed is” (or the equivalent). Thus, the heading simply stating “CLAIMS” is not sufficient.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 10, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 8, 10, and 11 each recite “EC” without reciting what EC stands for. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 20080243815A1), De Barros (US 20230410156A1), and Taylor (US 20170098266A1).
As per Claim 1, Chan teaches a display system for displaying information that is classified into categories (left pane 50 of the web page displays clusters of items, [0055], each cluster/category has a name, which may initially be set by the system to the name of the browse node most closely associated with the cluster, [0056]). Chan teaches rating each category/cluster on a scale of 1-5 [0058]. Items with a 1 or 2 star rating may be classified as negative; items with a 3 or 4 star rating may be classified as positive [0151]. Thus, the categories with a rating of 3-5 are upper-level categories, and the categories with a rating of 1-2 are lower-level categories. Thus, the category classification includes one or more upper-level categories and lower-level categories, and the one or more upper-level categories and the lower-level categories being used to classify targets [0058, 0151], the display system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories that store computer program code (each of the processes described in the preceding sections may be embodied in, and fully automated by, code modules executed by computer processors, the code modules may be stored on any type of computer storage device, [0163]), wherein the display data includes object data for displaying objects in a display area [0055], the objects include: items in the one or more upper-level categories; and items in the lower-level categories [0055, 0056, 0058, 0151], the one or more processors are configured to read the program code and operate as instructed by the program code [0163], and the program code includes: object display code configured to display the objects in the display area based on information related to the targets that are classified into each of the upper-level categories and the lower-level categories (if the collection to which clustering is applied consists of items rated as “not interested,” the clusters returned by the clustering engine are the non-interested clusters used for filtering, [0065], filter out any recommendations that are similar to any of the not-interested clusters, measuring the distances between the recommended items and the cluster centers of the not-interested cluster, and removing any recommended items that fall within a threshold distance of one of these cluster centers, [0067], the recommended items (excluding any that have been filtered out), as arranged by interest cluster/category, are exposed to the user, [0081]); and object change code configured to change display of at least one of the objects in the display area (if the user wishes to filter the recommendations by category, the user can click on one of the category names (“Action & Adventure,” or “Humorous”) in the lower portion of the display, if the user clicks on “Action & Adventure,” the upper portion of the display will be updated to show only the items falling in the corresponding cluster, [0082]).
However, Chan does not expressly teach the one or more memories store the display data, the objects include: one or more upper-level symbols, each representing a corresponding one of the one or more upper-level categories; and lower-level symbols, each representing the lower-level categories. However, De Barros teaches the one or more memories store the display data (content from data store 104 may be presented in visual display 110 and/or shopping feed 122, [0020]), the objects include symbols, each representing a corresponding one of the one or more categories (display area, such as display areas 112, may be an area within the shopping feed 122 where information pertaining to products offered on the shopping feed 122 are presented to the user, within the display area, information may be presented to the user with categories, symbols, and/or icons, [0025]; Fig. 2 shows that each of the categories in display area 112 has a symbol that represents a corresponding one of the categories). Since Chan teaches the objects include: items in the one or more upper-level categories; and items in the lower-level categories [0055, 0056, 0058], this teaching of the symbols from De Barros can be implemented into the device of Chan so that the objects include: one or more upper-level symbols, each representing a corresponding one of the one or more upper-level categories; and lower-level symbols, each representing the lower-level categories.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan so that the one or more memories store the display data, the objects include: one or more upper-level symbols, each representing a corresponding one of the one or more upper-level categories; and lower-level symbols, each representing the lower-level categories because De Barros suggests that this makes it easier for a user to determine the categories at a glance [0025].
However, Chan and De Barros do not teach that the lower-level categories are included in each of the upper-level categories. However, Taylor teaches that the lower-level categories (sub-categories) are included in each of the upper-level categories (vertical categories) (headings of the vertical categories are displayed, the vertical categories may be auto repair, bicycles, cameras, hair stylists, grocers, the vertical categories that are displayed may be clicked on to display an expanded list of sub-categories, Category B 66 has been selected and thereby expanded to display the sub-categories B-a 74 and B-b 76, [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan and De Barros so that the lower-level categories are included in each of the upper-level categories because Taylor suggests that this presents the information in an organized way to the user so that the user find the desired items by selecting a category and seeing the sub-categories of the selected category to find the desired sub-category that contains the desired items [0056].
As per Claim 3, Chan teaches wherein the program code includes: display attribute determination code configured to determine a display attribute of the at least one of the objects based on information related to a corresponding one of the objects from the information related to the targets, the display attribute including at least one of shape, size, color, or arrangement; and the object display code configured to display the objects in the display area based on the display attribute (rating each category/cluster on a scale of 1-5 or with a “not interested” rating, [0058], items with a 1 or 2 star rating may be classified as negative, items with a 3 or 4 star rating may be classified as positive, [0151], the recommended items (excluding any that have been filtered out), as arranged by interest cluster/category, are exposed to the user, [0081]).
As per Claim 4, Chan teaches wherein the display attribute determination code is configured to determine arrangement of the lower-level items relative to one of the upper-level items based on information related to targets classified into corresponding ones of the lower-level items [0058, 0151, 0065, 0067, 0081].
However, Chan does not teach determining arrangement of the lower-level symbols relative to one of the upper-level symbols. However, De Barros teaches the objects include symbols, each representing a corresponding one of the one or more categories [0025] (Fig. 2). Since Chan teaches wherein the display attribute determination code is configured to determine arrangement of the lower-level items relative to one of the upper-level items based on information related to targets classified into corresponding ones of the lower-level items [0058, 0065, 0067, 0081], this teaching of the symbols from De Barros can be implemented into the device of Chan so that it determines arrangement of the lower-level symbols relative to one of the upper-level symbols based on information related to targets classified into corresponding ones of the low-level categories. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 1.
As per Claim 7, Chan describes that Fig. 8 illustrates a hierarchical browse structure [0020]. A distance metric is used to calculate distances between items. This distance metric is used where the items being clustered are arranged in a hierarchical browse structure [0083]. There are paths to two items, A and B [0084]. Given two items, A and B, we define the similarity between them [0087]. Then it converts the similarity into a distance metric [0089]. As shown in Fig. 8, the upper nodes are the upper-level categories. Thus, Chan teaches wherein the one or more upper-level categories include multiple upper-level categories (upper nodes in Fig. 8), the objects include a line connecting at least two of the upper-level categories to each other (Fig. 8 shows a line connecting at least two of the upper nodes to each other), and the line represents a correlation or a correlation level between two of the upper-level categories (Fig. 8) [0020, 0083, 0084, 0087, 0089].
However, Chan does not teach wherein the one or more upper-level symbols include multiple upper-level symbols, the line connects at least two of the upper-level symbols to each other, and the upper-level categories correspond to the two of the upper-level symbols connected to each other by the line. However, De Barros teaches the objects include symbols, each representing a corresponding one of the one or more categories [0025] (Fig. 2). Since Chan teaches wherein the one or more upper-level categories include multiple upper-level categories, the objects include a line connecting at least two of the upper-level categories to each other, and the line represents a correlation or a correlation level between two of the upper-level categories (Fig. 8) [0020, 0083, 0084, 0087, 0089], this teaching of the symbols from De Barros can be implemented into the device of Chan so that the one or more upper-level symbols include multiple upper-level symbols, the objects include a line connecting at least two of the upper-level symbols to each other, and the upper-level categories correspond to the two of the upper-level symbols connected to each other by the line. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 1.
15. As per Claim 9, Chan teaches wherein the one or more upper-level categories include multiple upper-level categories, and the display attribute determination code is configured to determine distances between the upper-level categories based on a correlation level between corresponding ones of the upper-level categories (Fig. 8) [0020, 0083, 0084, 0087, 0089].
However, Chan does not teach the one or more upper-level symbols include multiple upper-level symbols, and determining distances between the upper-level symbols. However, De Barros teaches the objects include symbols, each representing a corresponding one of the one or more categories [0025] (Fig. 2). Since Chan teaches wherein the one or more upper-level categories include multiple upper-level categories, and the display attribute determination code is configured to determine distances between the upper-level categories based on a correlation level between corresponding ones of the upper-level categories (Fig. 8) [0020, 0083, 0084, 0087, 0089], this teaching of the symbols from De Barros can be implemented into the device of Chan so that the one or more upper-level symbols include multiple upper-level symbols, and determining distances between the upper-level symbols based on a correlation level between corresponding ones of the upper-level categories. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 1.
16. As per Claim 14, Chan teaches wherein the display area is a two-dimensional display screen, the display screen including a main screen (50) for displaying the objects (left pane 50 of the web page displays clusters of items (three clusters shown, each referred to as a category), [0055]) and a sub-screen (56) aligned with the main screen (right pane 56, [0062]; Fig. 3 shows right pane 56 is aligned with left pane 50).
However, Chan and De Barros do not teach the program code includes additional information display code configured to display, when one of the one or more upper-level symbols is selected on the main screen, additional information related to the upper-level category corresponding to the selected upper-level symbol on the sub-screen, and the additional information includes information related to each of the lower-level categories that are included in the upper-level category. However, Taylor teaches the program code includes additional information display code configured to display, when one of the one or more upper-level categories is selected on the main screen, additional information related to the upper-level category corresponding to the selected upper-level category, and the additional information includes information related to each of the lower-level categories that are included in the upper-level category (headings of the vertical categories are displayed, the vertical categories may be auto repair, bicycles, cameras, hair stylists, grocers, the vertical categories that are displayed may be clicked on to display an expanded list of sub-categories, [0056], when a drop-down menu of sub-categories is displayed, one of them may be selected, in order to reveal listings of the businesses within the sub-category, [0057]). Since the combination of Chan and De Barros teaches the upper-level symbols, as discussed in the rejection for Claim 1, and Chan teaches the sub-screen [0062], this teaching from Taylor can be implemented into the combination of Chan and De Barros so that it displays, when one of the one or more upper-level symbols is selected on the main screen, additional information related to the upper-level category corresponding to the selected upper-level symbol on the sub-screen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan and De Barros so that the program code includes additional information display code configured to display, when one of the one or more upper-level symbols is selected on the main screen, additional information related to the upper-level category corresponding to the selected upper-level symbol on the sub-screen, and the additional information includes information related to each of the lower-level categories that are included in the upper-level category because Taylor suggests that this way, if a user wants to see additional information related to the lower-level categories, such as listings of the businesses within the lower-level category, then the user can easily select on the screen in order to see it [0056-0057].
17. As per Claim 16, Claim 16 is similar in scope to Claim 1, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
18. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 20080243815A1), De Barros (US 20230410156A1), and Taylor (US 20170098266A1) in view of Tumuluri (US 20240127324A1).
Chan, De Barros, and Taylor are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1.
However, Chan, De Barros, and Taylor do not teach wherein the at least one of the objects that undergo display changes is a dynamic object, the program code includes: dynamic attribute determination code configured to determine a dynamic attribute of the dynamic object based on information related to the dynamic object from the information related to the targets, the dynamic attribute including at least one of movement speed, movement range, display rate, or rate of display change; and the object change code configured to change display of the dynamic object based on the dynamic attribute. However, Tumuluri teaches wherein the at least one of the objects that undergo display changes is a dynamic object, the program code includes: dynamic attribute determination code configured to determine a dynamic attribute of the dynamic object based on information related to the dynamic object from the information related to the targets, the dynamic attribute including at least one of movement speed, movement range, display rate, or rate of display change; and the object change code configured to change display of the dynamic object based on the dynamic attribute (animated objects to control animation such as speed, etc., [0059], shopping experience that blends the best of online and offline experiences, Abstract; online shopping, [0002], web-server to enable online ecommerce via simple web-browsers, [0144]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan, De Barros, and Taylor so that the at least one of the objects that undergo display changes is a dynamic object, the program code includes: dynamic attribute determination code configured to determine a dynamic attribute of the dynamic object based on information related to the dynamic object from the information related to the targets, the dynamic attribute including at least one of movement speed, movement range, display rate, or rate of display change; and the object change code configured to change display of the dynamic object based on the dynamic attribute because Tumuluri suggests that this way, the use of the product can be demonstrated online [0083].
19. Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 20080243815A1), De Barros (US 20230410156A1), and Taylor (US 20170098266A1) in view of Subramanian (US 20150112756A1).
20. As per Claim 5, Chan, De Barros, and Taylor are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1.
However, Chan, De Barros, and Taylor do not teach wherein the object change code is configured to move the lower-level symbols along a path with respect to a corresponding one of the upper-level symbols. However, Subramanian teaches wherein the object change code is configured to move the lower-level symbols along a path with respect to a corresponding one of the upper-level symbols (center icon and a plurality of icons that revolve around the center icon, wherein the center icon represents a root object and each of the plurality of icons represent an object from an ordered list of objects, the ordered list being associated with the root object and the objects being ordered relative to at least one property, wherein the plurality of icons are positioned in the spiral according to the ordered list, [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan, De Barros, and Taylor so that the object change code is configured to move the lower-level symbols along a path with respect to a corresponding one of the upper-level symbols because Subramanian suggests that this makes it easier for the user to visualize the symbols, and clearly see that the center symbol is the upper-level symbol, and the plurality of symbols that revolve around the center symbol are the lower-level symbols [0005, 0008].
21. As per Claim 15, Chan teaches wherein the display data includes background data, a background represented by the background data expresses space in two or more dimensions (Fig. 3 shows the background is white blank space).
However, Chan, De Barros, and Taylor do not teach each of the upper-level symbols is represented as a central star of a planetary system floating in space, and the lower-level symbols corresponding to one of the upper-level symbols are represented as planets revolving along a path centered around a corresponding one of the central stars. However, Subramanian teaches wherein each of the upper-level symbols is represented as a central symbol, and the lower-level symbols corresponding to one of the upper-level symbols are represented as symbols revolving along a path centered around a corresponding one of the central symbols (center icon and a plurality of icons that revolve around the center icon, wherein the center icon represents a root object and each of the plurality of icons represent an object from an ordered list of objects, the ordered list being associated with the root object and the objects being ordered relative to at least one property, wherein the plurality of icons are positioned in the spiral according to the ordered list, [0005]). Even though Subramanian does not expressly teach that each of the upper-level symbols is represented as a central star of a planetary system floating in space, and the lower-level symbols are represented as planets, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a webpage designer could design the symbols to be various shapes, and thus the webpage designer could design the central symbol to be a star and the lower-level symbols to be planets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan, De Barros, and Taylor so that each of the upper-level symbols is represented as a central star of a planetary system floating in space, and the lower-level symbols corresponding to one of the upper-level symbols are represented as planets revolving along a path centered around a corresponding one of the central stars because Subramanian suggests that this makes it easier for the user to visualize the symbols, and clearly see that the center symbol is the upper-level symbol, and the plurality of symbols that revolve around the center symbol are the lower-level symbols [0005, 0008].
22. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 20080243815A1), De Barros (US 20230410156A1), and Taylor (US 20170098266A1) in view of Zhang (US 20220374805A1).
Chan, De Barros, and Taylor are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 9. Chan teaches wherein the targets include multiple items regarding products or services transacted on an EC site (recommends catalog items to users of an e-commerce web site, [0023]).
However, Chan, De Barros, and Taylor do not teach wherein the correlation level between two of the upper-level categories is calculated based on the number of purchasers who have purchased two items that are respectively classified into two corresponding ones of the upper-level categories. However, Zhang teaches wherein the correlation level between two of the upper-level categories is calculated based on the number of purchasers who have purchased two items that are respectively classified into two corresponding ones of the upper-level categories (estimated value 126 for the predicted inventory item 114, estimated value 126 is ascertained by comparing attributes of the predicted inventory item 114 (category) to information describing at least one similar items for sale via one or more retail entities (e.g., number of unique buyers, quantities purchased on the at least one similar item, and the like), [0073], identifies connections between various pairs of category nodes, where a connection indicates that known inventories of at least two users in the user data indicate ownership of one or more items included in each of the category nodes linked by the connection, [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan, De Barros, and Taylor so that the correlation level between two of the upper-level categories is calculated based on the number of purchasers who have purchased two items that are respectively classified into two corresponding ones of the upper-level categories because Zhang suggests that this is useful for predicting future needs more accurately [0017].
23. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 20080243815A1), De Barros (US 20230410156A1), and Taylor (US 20170098266A1) in view of Galron (US 20170337612A1).
Chan, De Barros, and Taylor are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1. Chan teaches wherein the targets include multiple items regarding products or services transacted on an EC site [0023].
However, Chan, De Barros, and Taylor do not teach the information related to the targets includes a quantity for a specified period, the quantity being related to an item classified into each of the categories, and the quantity includes at least one of a total sales value, a total sales volume, or the number of purchasers. However, Galron teaches the information related to the targets includes a quantity for a specified period, the quantity being related to an item classified into each of the categories, and the quantity includes at least one of a total sales value, a total sales volume, or the number of purchasers (assign as the dominant categories of a collection in the categories in the collection, the category with the highest sales volume over time in the collection, or the like, [0050], identifying categories of items that interest a user by analyzing the user’s interaction with an online shopping site, Claim 1 of Galron).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan, De Barros, and Taylor so that the information related to the targets includes a quantity for a specified period, the quantity being related to an item classified into each of the categories, and the quantity includes at least one of a total sales value, a total sales volume, or the number of purchasers because Galron suggests that the sales volume is a good indicator of whether a user would be interested in that category of items (Abstract) [0050].
24. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 20080243815A1), De Barros (US 20230410156A1), Taylor (US 20170098266A1), and Galron (US 20170337612A1) in view of Mun (US011379900B1) and Venkateswaran (US 20110202469A1).
Chan, De Barros, Taylor, and Galron are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 11. Chan teaches wherein the program code includes: display attribute determination code configured to determine a display attribute of at least one of the objects based on information related to a corresponding one of the objects from the information related to the targets; the object display code configured to display the objects in the display area based on the display attribute (rating each category/cluster on a scale of 1-5 or with a “not interested” rating, [0058], items with a 1 or 2 star rating may be classified as negative, items with a 3 or 4 star rating may be classified as positive, [0151], the recommended items (excluding any that have been filtered out), as arranged by interest cluster/category, are exposed to the user, [0081]).
However, Chan, De Barros, Taylor, and Galron do not teach wherein the at least one of the objects that undergo display changes is a dynamic object, dynamic attribute determination code configured to determine a dynamic attribute of at least one of the dynamic objects based on information related to a corresponding one of the dynamic objects from information related to the targets; and the object change code configured to control display of the at least one of the dynamic objects based on the dynamic attribute, the display attribute is determined based on the quantity for the specified period. However, Mun teaches wherein the at least one of the objects that undergo display changes is a dynamic object, dynamic attribute determination code configured to determine a dynamic attribute of at least one of the dynamic objects based on information related to a corresponding one of the dynamic objects from information related to the targets; and the object change code configured to control display of the at least one of the dynamic objects based on the dynamic attribute, the display attribute and the dynamic attribute is determined based on the quantity for the specified period (when there are a plurality of second categories, which are subcategories of the first category, the size of an image corresponding to each of the second categories displayed in the second region may be determined based on sales information, the size of the image may be determined based on sales information of products included in the corresponding second category, col. 10, lines 24-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan, De Barros, Taylor, and Galron so that the at least one of the objects that undergo display changes is a dynamic object, dynamic attribute determination code configured to determine a dynamic attribute of at least one of the dynamic objects based on information related to a corresponding one of the dynamic objects from information related to the targets; and the object change code configured to control display of the at least one of the dynamic objects based on the dynamic attribute, the display attribute is determined based on the quantity for the specified period because Mun suggests that this way, the categories that have higher sales are larger in size, so that the user can easily determine that these are categories that the user would likely be interested in (col. 10, lines 24-42).
However, Chan, De Barros, Taylor, Galron, and Mun do not teach the dynamic attribute is determined based on a rate of change between the quantity for the specified period and a quantity for a period prior to the specified period. However, Venkateswaran teaches all the dots 425 can change into red, green or yellow color showing various indications representing growth in sales [0058]. Since Mun teaches size of image corresponding to each of the second categories may be determined based on sales information (col. 10, lines 24-42), this teaching from Venkateswaran can be implemented into device of Mun so the color of an image corresponding to each of the categories is determined based on growth in sales. Thus, combination of Mun and Venkateswaran teaches the dynamic attribute is determined based on a rate of change between the quantity for the specified period and a quantity for a period prior to the specified period.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan, De Barros, Taylor, Galron, and Mun so that the dynamic attribute is determined based on a rate of change between the quantity for the specified period and a quantity for a period prior to the specified period because Venkateswaran suggests that this way, the categories that have higher growth in sales can be easily determined by the user, since the user is likely to be interested in categories that have higher growth in sales [0058].
25. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 20080243815A1), De Barros (US 20230410156A1), and Taylor (US 20170098266A1) in view of Bernstein (US 20070022020A1).
Chan, De Barros, and Taylor are relied on for teachings discussed above relative to Claim 1. Chan teaches wherein the display system includes a database configured to store data related to the targets, at least one type of the object data is linked to data related to a corresponding one of the objects in the data stored in the database (description stored in a database, [0033]).
However, Chan, De Barros, and Taylor do not teach the object display code is configured to display, when one of the objects is selected, data linked to the selected object. However, Bernstein teaches wherein the display system includes a database configured to store data related to the targets, at least one type of the object data is linked to data related to a corresponding one of the objects in the data stored in the database, and the object display code is configured to display, when one of the objects is selected, data linked to the selected object (receiving an online selection request for a first item, retrieving pre-stored product data from a database 125, generate a product data description in a first window pane, [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan, De Barros, and Taylor so that the object display code is configured to display, when one of the objects is selected, data linked to the selected object because Bernstein suggests that this way, the user can easily see the product data description for the product as desired [0010].
Allowable Subject Matter
26. Claims 6 and 8 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, and the limitations of Claim 8 are amended to overcome the objection discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
27. The prior art taken singly or in combination do not teach or suggest the combination of all the limitations of Claim 6 and base Claim 1 and intervening Claim 5, and in particular, do not teach wherein the path as a shape of an arc, an ellipse, or a circle centered around the one of the upper-level symbols, and each of path planes of the paths centered around the one of the upper-level symbols is inclined with respect to the same reference plane at an inclination angle corresponding to information related to the target classified into a corresponding one of the lower-level categories.
28. The prior art taken singly or in combination do not teach or suggest the combination of all the limitations of Claim 8 and base Claim 1 and intervening Claim 7, and in particular, do not teach wherein the targets include multiple items regarding products or services transacted on an EC site, the display system comprises a user database configured to store information related to users of the EC site, the user database includes a purchase history of each of the users on the EC site, the line is a movement line indicating a movement pattern of the user between the upper-level categories, and the movement pattern includes a pattern in which a user who has purchased an item classified into one of the two of the upper-level categories during a period purchases an item classified into the other one of the two of the upper-level categories during another period.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONI HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7785. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6:30pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
JH
/JONI HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights