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 .
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed 9 February 2026.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3 February 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-11, 13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang (US 2022/0245124, published 4 August 2022) and further in view of Hirsch et al. (US 8788935, published 22 July 2014, hereafter Hirsch) and further in view of Jatavallabha et al. (US 2006/0195781, published 31 August 2006, hereafter Jatavallabha) and further in view of Haig (US 12141523, filed 28 June 2023) and further in view of Chang et al. (US 2020/0004792, published 2 January 2020, hereafter Chang).
As per independent claim 1, Chuang discloses a method for generating an information card of an object, comprising:
in response to receiving a page address of a page comprising a set of attributes of a target object, obtaining a set of page elements in the page (paragraph 0002: Here, a webpage address is provided in order to obtain a webpage having attributes for an entity of the webpage)
determining the set of attributes of the target object based on the set of page elements (paragraph 0002: Here, a set of attributes, corresponding to an entity (target object), are obtained from the webpage)
generating an information card of the target object based on the set of attributes (paragraph 0002: Here, an information card is generated for the entity (target object) based upon attributes extracted from the webpage)
Chuang fails to specifically disclose wherein generating the information card of the target object further comprises:
wherein the plurality of pages is determined based on a hierarchical scope of pages to be traversed that is specified by a user input, and the set of attributes are stored in fields of a data structure
However, Hirsch, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward traversing and extracting data from webpages, discloses wherein the plurality of pages is determined based on a hierarchical scope of pages to be traversed that is specified by a user input (column 2, lines 34-52: Here, a URL is received and features and content associated with the page and website are determined. The examiner interprets the website as being a set of hierarchical pages). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Hirsch with Chuang, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for extract data and generating modules using these extracted contents (Hirsch: Figure 5, item 560).
Additionally, Chuang fails to specifically disclose:
wherein the plurality of pages is determined based on an entry address that is input by a user
the set of attributes are stored in fields of a data structure
wherein the machine learning model describes an association between the set of page elements and the set of attributes
obtaining a template for specifying a layout of the information card
establishing a mapping relationship between fields and locations in the template for insertion of a corresponding attribute to a corresponding location
generating the information card of the target object based on the template
However, Jatavallabha, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward filling templates with disparate data, discloses:
the set of attributes are stored in fields of a data structure (paragraphs 0033-0035: Here, a customer relationship management (CRM) application stores data (paragraph 0021). The CRM data store is a relational database, object-oriented database, or another type of data collection for storing CRM data (paragraph 0033). This CRM data store is used for populating the templates (paragraph 0035))
obtaining a template for specifying a layout of the information card (paragraph 0035: Here, an interactive form template corresponding to the datatype is selected for filling)
establishing a mapping relationship between fields and locations in the template for insertion of a corresponding attribute to a corresponding location (paragraph 0035: Here, a mapping between fields in the interactive form and the data structure is used to populate the template)
generating the filled template of the target object based on the template (paragraph 0035: Here, the template is populated with data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Jatavallabha with Chuang-Hirsch, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for determination of data types and mappings to fill template (Jatavallabha: paragraph 0035).
Further, Haig, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward filling a template using a machine learning model, discloses a machine learning model (column 25, line 65- column 26, line 15: Here, a machine learning model is trained with historical data to personalize template structure selection and content fill for a particular user). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Haig with Chuang-Abhyankar-Donglin, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for personalizing information cards based upon historical training data (Haig: column 25, line 65- column 26, line 15).
Finally, Chang, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward identifying data in a user specified website, discloses:
wherein the plurality of pages is determined based on an entry address that is input by a user (paragraph 0027: Here, a user inputs a network address of a target website to be crawled to obtain important features of the website)
describes an association between the set of page elements and the set of attributes (paragraph 0027: Here, an association between important features and text content is obtained (paragraphs 0027-0032))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Chang with Chuang-Hirsch-Jatavallabha-Haig, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for automatically collecting contents, identifying important features, and extracting contents associated with important features (Chang: paragraphs 0027-0032).
As per dependent claim 3, Chuang, Hirsch, Jatavallabha, Haig, and Chang disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Jatavallabha discloses wherein obtaining the template for specifying the layout of the information card comprises:
determining a page type of the page based on the set of page elements (paragraphs 0035 and 0047: Here, the page type is selected based upon the object type to be inserted into the template)
selecting the template matching the page type, from a plurality of candidate template (paragraph 0047: here, the template is selected, such as a contact, activity, task, or calendar item based upon the data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Jatavallabha with Chuang-Hirsch, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for determination of data types and mappings to fill template (Jatavallabha: paragraph 0035).
As per dependent claim 5, Chuang, Hirsch, Jatavallabha, Haig, and Chang disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Chuang discloses wherein determine the set of attributes of the target object based on the set of page elements comprises:
determining the set of attributes further based on a semantic analysis for the set of page elements (paragraph 0002: Here, the page is analyzed to determine semantic markup included within the page).
As per dependent claim 8, Chuang, Hirsch, Jatavallabha, Haig, and Chang disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Chuang discloses sending the information card to a client device to provide the page in response to detecting an interaction with the information card (Figure 2, item 225; paragraph 0026: Here, the information card, displayed to the user based upon a user interaction includes a link (item 225) that when selected directs a user to the webpage from which the attributes populating the entity card were extracted).
As per dependent claim 9, Chuang, Hirsch, Jatavallabha, Haig, and Chang disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Chuang discloses wherein the set of page elements comprises at least one of: an image, a text ,a video, a link, or a component (paragraph 0026: Here, the contents displayed on the information card may all be interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as being components), and the set of attributes comprises at least one of: a name, a description, an image, a brand, or a price of the target object (paragraph 0026: Here, the entity card is generated based upon receipt of a request data regarding a name).
As per dependent claim 10, Chuang, Hirsch, Jatavallabha, Haig, and Chang disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Chuang discloses wherein the target object comprises at least one of: a physical item or a virtual item ((Figures 2-3: Here, the provided information cards are virtual items provided to a user on a display).
With respect to claim 11, the applicant recites the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Chuang further discloses at least one processing unit (Figure 1, item 105; paragraph 0011) and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processing unit, the instructions, and when executed by the at least one processing unit, causing the electronic device to perform act (paragraph 0046).
With respect to claims, 13, 15, and 18-19, the applicant discloses the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 3, 5, and 8-9, respectively. Claims 15 and 18-19 are similarly rejected.
With respect to claim 20, the applicant recites the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Chuang further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to implement acts (paragraphs 0050-0052).
Claims 4, 6, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, Hirsch, Jatavallabha, Haig, and Chang and further in view of Lungu-Stan et al. (US 2024/0127577, filed 13 October 2022, hereafter Lungu-Stan).
As per dependent claim 4, Chuang, Hirsch, Jatavallabha, Haig, and Chang disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Chuang fails to specifically disclose wherein obtaining the template for specifying the layout of the information card comprises:
providing an interaction interface for selecting the template
in response to detecting an interaction for the interaction interface, selecting a template corresponding to the interaction, from a plurality of candidate templates
However, Lungu-Stan, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward user selection of a template, discloses:
providing an interaction interface for selecting the template (paragraph 0040: Here, a user interface is presented that allows a user to select a template)
in response to detecting an interaction for the interaction interface, selecting a template corresponding to the interaction, from a plurality of candidate templates (paragraph 0040: Here, responsive to a user selection, a template is selected from the plurality of available templates)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Lungu-Stan with Chuang-Abhyankar, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would have allowed for a user to select a template for filling (Lungu-Stan: paragraph 0040). This would have provided a user with greater control of customizing templates.
As per dependent claim 6, Chuang, Hirsch, Jatavallabha, Haig, and Chang disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Chuang discloses generating the information card of the target object by inserting the set of attributes at the set of insertion positions to generate the information card of the target object (paragraph 0002: Here, a set of attributes relating to an entity are used for populating a card).
Chuang fails to specifically disclose wherein the template comprises a background image and a set of insertion positions respectively corresponding to the set of attributes.
However, Lungu-Stan discloses, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward filling a template, discloses wherein the template comprises a background image (paragraph 0074; Here, an image may be applied to the template as a background image) and a set of insertion positions respectively corresponding to the set of attributes (paragraph 0075: Here, the digital template includes multiple elements, including text items and SVG graphics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Lungu-Stan with Chuang-Abhyankar, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would have allowed for a user to customize a template (Lungu-Stan: paragraphs 0074-0075). This would have provided a user with greater control of customizing templates.
With respect to claims 14 and 16, the applicant discloses the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 4 and 6, respectively. Claims 14 and 16 are similarly rejected.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, Hirsch, Jatavallabha, Haig, and Chang and further in view of Fein et al. (US 10620801, patented 14 August 2020, hereafter Fein).
As per dependent claim 7, Chuang, Hirsch, Jatavallabha, Haig, and Chang disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Chuang fails to specifically disclose providing an interaction interface for receiving the page address and in response to detecting an interaction for the interaction interface, performing the method. However, Fein, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward generating an information card, discloses providing an interaction interface for receiving the page address and in response to detecting an interaction for the interaction interface, performing the method (column 20, lines 41-57: Here, a URL is entered to specify a website. The information of the website is then used to generate the information card). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Fein with Chuang, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for creating a card based upon a specified URL (Fein: column 20, lines 41-57). This would have provided a user greater control over card creation by allowing for specifying source pages for the card.
With respect to claim 17, the applicant discloses the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 7. Claim 17 is similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103, specifically, that the prior art of record fails to specifically disclose the amended limitations, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chuang, Hirsch, Jatavallabha, Haig, and Chang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Malla (US 9836385): Discloses receiving a user specified URL and identifying a plurality of elements of the webpage and associated attributes (claim 17)
Wengrower (US 2016/0307277): Discloses a user inputting a webpage URL and identifying page contents and associated attributes (paragraph 0070)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KYLE R STORK whose telephone number is (571)272-4130. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 2pm; 4pm - 6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571/272-2589. 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.
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights