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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in the first line, “orchestrating user interface” should be “orchestrating a user interface”. In the second line of the abstract, “the method include” should be either “the method including” or “wherein the method includes”. 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 Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: At the end of the fourth line of claim 1, “interface;” should be followed by the word “and”. In the sixth line of claim 1, “code, when executed, cause the system” should be “code which, when executed, causes the system”. In the eighth line of claim 1, “obtain” should be followed by a comma, given the later comma after “interface”. In the twelfth line of claim 1, “obtain” should be followed by a comma, given the later comma after “interface”. In the seventeenth line of claim 1, the comma after “determine” appears to be extraneous. In the twenty-first line of claim 1, “the one or more sets of trigger conditions” technically lacks antecedent basis, and should be “the one or more trigger conditions”. At the end of the twenty-sixth line of claim 1, the word “and” after “visual element;” appears to be unneeded. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the seventh line of claim 4, “on at least on the estimated state position” should be “on at least the estimated state position”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6, 7, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the eleventh line of claim 6, “a interactive visual element” should be “an interactive visual element”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the eleventh of claim 11, the comma after “determining” appears to be extraneous. In the fifteenth line of claim 11, “the one or more sets of trigger conditions” technically lacks antecedent basis, and should be “the one or more trigger conditions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 objected to because of the following informalities: In the sixth line of claim 14, “on at least on the estimated state position” should be “on at least the estimated state position”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 16, 17, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the eleventh line of claim 16, “a interactive visual element” should be “an interactive visual element”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the third line of claim 20, “obtain” should be followed by a comma, given the later comma after “interface”. In the seventh line of claim 20, “obtain” should be followed by a comma, given the later comma after “interface”. In the eleventh line of claim 20, the comma after “determine” appears to be extraneous. In the fifteenth line of claim 20, “the one or more sets of trigger conditions” technically lacks antecedent basis, and should be “the one or more trigger conditions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
First, it is determined that the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03 (II). In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a computer system comprising a processor and non-transitory computer-readable memory, and therefore fall within the statutory category of machine. Claims 11-19 recite a method, and therefore fall within the statutory category of process. Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, and therefore falls within the statutory category of process. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test. (Step 1: YES)
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. The claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One) as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong Two). See MPEP 2106.04.
Beginning with Step 2A, Prong One, claim 1 recites the system being caused to “obtain through the communication interface, a first data set representative of intercepted data communication messages between a user interface of a user and a merchant hosting server,” and then “execute a set of machine codes associated with the current resource offering to cause the user interface to render a shopping interface for the user.” Parallel independent claims 11 and 20 recite parallel language. Therefore, the claims are directed to commercial interactions (including advertising marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), an abstract idea in the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES)
Proceeding to Step 2A, Prong Two, representative claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
A computer system for orchestrating user interface modifications, the system comprising:
a processor;
a communication interface;
a non-transitory computer readable memory in communication with the processor, the memory storing software code, when executed, cause the system to:
obtain through the communication interface, a first data set representative of intercepted data communication messages between a user interface of a user and a merchant hosting server, the first data set representing queries or navigation inputs entered by the user on the user interface;
obtain through the communication interface, a second data set representing an instruction set for loading visual elements on the user interface provided from the merchant hosting server;
analyze the first data set to obtain one or more user-specific characteristics;
determine, when the user-specific characteristics associated with the user satisfy one or more trigger conditions associated with a current resource offering; and
responsive to a determination that the user-specific characteristics associated with the user satisfy the one or more sets of trigger conditions;
inject, into the instruction set for loading the visual elements on the user interface provided from the merchant hosting server, code corresponding to an interactive visual element corresponding to the current resource offering such that the user interface renders the interactive visual element; and
receive a navigation input from the user indicating, through the interactive visual element, that the current resource offering is executed by the user; and
execute a set of machine codes associated with the current resource offering to cause the user interface to render a shopping interface for the user.
The recited system components and operations apply computer technology to a particular use, but do not recite any technical improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. They do not meet any of the other specific criteria indicative of integration into a practical application for purposes of Step 2A, Prong Two, and they do not otherwise apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The same also applies to the claims depending from claim 1, to parallel independent claims 11 and 20, and to the parallel dependent claims depending from claim 11. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO)
Next, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The analysis under Step 2B is largely parallel to the analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two, and therefore leads to the same conclusions for the same reasons, but there is also the additional issue of whether the claims add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. The instant claims are analyzed accordingly.
With regard to independent claim 1, Avidan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592) discloses (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “Although not illustrated, it should be appreciated that the ecommerce server 110, the merchant computer 120, and the customer computer 130 each include conventional components, such as a processor and a memory medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the processor to perform operations including those described herein. The computer-readable instructions can be stored on non-transitory computer-readable storage media of a conventional type, whether devices and/or materials.” Hence, the computer system, processor, and non-transitory computer readable memory in communication with the processor, the memory storing software code [which] when executed, cause[s] the system to perform operations, require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology.
Patzer (U.S. Patent 10,552,875) discloses (column 9, lines 47-52, emphasis added), “In one embodiment, communication interface 310 includes a conventional communication interface that supports TCP/IP or other conventional communication protocols, and input/output of communication interface 310 is coupled to a network such as the Internet or a local area network or both.” Hence, the communication interface of claim 1 requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The obtaining steps of claim 1 are not explicitly technological, and the analyzing and determining steps are not in themselves technological. Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0150103) discloses (paragraph 22, emphasis added), “Meanwhile, the conventional module injection method may inject a module for performing a specific function into an application program whose execution is instructed by a user by a separate individual injection module that is operated in a user mode.” Hence, the operation of injecting code corresponding to an interactive visual element requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Hence, the operation of receiving a navigation input from a user requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology; this also applies to the two obtaining steps.
Smith (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0036543) discloses (paragraph 3, emphasis added), “It is well known that data transmitted by electronic or other means may be intercepted, copied and stored by unknown parties for one or more unknown purposes.” Hence, the “intercepted data communication messages” described as being obtained in the first obtaining step of claim 1 need have been intercepted using only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claim 1, whether considered separately or in combination with each other, do not raise the claimed system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, does not recite anything specifically technological. Claim 3, which depends from claim 2, recites that at least one of the first data set and the second data set are provided to a database corresponding to the user stored on a protected data storage to update a user profile of the user. The courts have recognized storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, in Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d at 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, storing at least one data set on a protected data storage requires only network). Hence, the operation of receiving a navigation input from a user requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. The limitations of claim 2 and 3, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 4, which depends from claim 3, and claim 5, which depends from claim 4, do not recite specific technology beyond that already addressed above with regard to claims 1, 2, and 3. Claim 6, which depends from claim 5, recites a machine learning model architecture, and utilizing the machine learning model architecture. Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0264316) discloses (paragraph 137, emphasis added), “Machine-learning models are well known in the prior art, and typically operate by applying a series of algorithmic steps, layers or masks to input data in order to predict output data. Typically, the output data indicates an answer to a predetermined question that the machine-learning model is intended to answer (e.g., ‘has a particular predetermined event taken place?’). Examples of machine-learning models include neural network models and deep learning models.” See also paragraph 140 of Zhang. Hence, the machine learning model architecture requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claims 4, 5, and 6, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 3, do not raise the claimed system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 7, which depends from claim 6, and claim 8, which depends from claim 7, do not recite specific technology beyond that already addressed above with regard to claims 1 through 6. Thus, the limitations of claims 7 and 8, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, do not raise the claimed system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 9, which depends from claim from claim 1, recites that the data sets representative of intercepted data communication messages between a user interface of a user and a merchant hosting server are intercepted from communications between at least one of a mobile application, a customized browser having interfaces for communicating the data communication messages, or a browser extension coupled to a browser, the browser extension having the interfaces for communicating the data communication message. Senger (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0110911) discloses (paragraph 6, emphasis added), “Mobile applications for monitoring and facilitating compliance with recovery plans are generally well known. For example, Seeley et al. U.S. Publication 2015/0205935 A1 discloses tools for interactively monitoring and documenting compliance with using a compliance module resident on a mobile computing device (commonly referred to as an ‘app’).” Hence, having the intercepted messages involve at least a mobile application requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitation of claim 9, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, does not raise the claimed system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 10, which depends from claim 5, does not recite anything specifically technological. Hence, the limitation of claim 10, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, does not raise the claimed system to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B, claims 1-10: NO)
Independent claim 11 is parallel to claim 1, and therefore does not qualify as significantly more than an abstract idea when analyzed under Step 2B, for essentially the same reasons and based on the same references and judicial precedents set forth above with regard to claim 1 (except that Avidan need not be applied, since claim 10 does not recite a processor or a non-transitory computer readable memory in communication with the processor).
Claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are parallel to claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 respectively, and therefore do not qualify as significantly more than an abstract idea when analyzed under Step 2B, for essentially the same reasons and based on the same references and judicial precedents set forth above with regard to claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Claim 19, which depends from claim from claim 11, is parallel to claim 9, and therefore does not qualify as significantly more than an abstract idea when analyzed under Step 2B, for essentially the same reasons and based on the same references and judicial precedents set forth above with regard to claim 9. (Step 2B, claims 1-19: NO)
Independent claim 20 is parallel to claim 1, and therefore does not qualify as significantly more than an abstract idea when analyzed under Step 2B, for essentially the same reasons and based on the same references and judicial precedents set forth above with respect to claim 1. Specifically, claim 20 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed adapt at lest one computing device to [perform operations]. Avidan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592) discloses (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “Although not illustrated, it should be appreciated that the ecommerce server 110, the merchant computer 120, and the customer computer 130 each include conventional components, such as a processor and a memory medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the processor to perform operations including those described herein. The computer-readable instructions can be stored on non-transitory computer-readable storage media of a conventional type, whether devices and/or materials.” Therefore, the recited non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. (Step 2B, claims 20: NO)
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,260,442. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. As may be seen in Table 1 below, claim 1 of the instant application is identical to claim 1 of the ‘442 patent, claim 2 of the instant application is identical to claim 2 of the ‘442 patent, claim 3 of the instant application is identical to claim 3 of the ‘442 patent, claim 4 of the instant application is identical to claim 4 of the ‘442 patent, claim 5 of the instant application is identical to claim 5 of the ‘442 patent, claim 6 of the instant application is identical to claim 6 of the ‘442 patent, claim 7 of the instant application is identical to claim 7 of the ‘442 patent, and claim 8 of the instant application is identical to claim 8 of the ‘442 patent. Claim 9 of the instant application is identical to claim 10 of the ‘442 patent, except for the claim number. Claim 10 of the instant application is identical to claim 9 of the ‘442 patent, except for the claim number. All of this may be seen in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 12,260,442
1. A computer system for orchestrating user interface modifications, the system comprising:
a processor;
a communication interface;
a non-transitory computer readable memory in communication with the processor, the memory storing software code, when executed, cause the system to:
obtain through the communication interface, a first data set representative of intercepted data communication messages between a user interface of a user and a merchant hosting server, the first data set representing queries or navigation inputs entered by the user on the user interface;
obtain through the communication interface, a second data set representing an instruction set for loading visual elements on the user interface provided from the merchant hosting server;
analyze the first data set to obtain one or more user-specific characteristics;
determine, when the user-specific characteristics associated with the user satisfy one or more trigger conditions associated with a current resource offering; and
responsive to a determination that the user-specific characteristics associated with the user satisfy the one or more sets of trigger conditions:
inject, into the instruction set for loading the visual elements on the user interface provided from the merchant hosting server, code corresponding to an interactive visual element corresponding to the current resource offering such that the user interface renders the interactive visual element; and
receive a navigation input from the user indicating, through the interactive visual element, that the current resource offering is executed by the user; and
execute a set of machine codes associated with the current resource offering to cause the user interface to render a shopping interface for the user.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the trigger condition is associated with at least one of an in-journey offer, an in-journey coupon, and an in-journey product recommendation.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first data set and the second data set are provided to a database corresponding to the user stored on a protected data storage to update a user profile of the user.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the software code, when executed, further cause the system to:
process one or both of the first data set and the second data set to estimate a state position of a browsing journey of the user for browsing a product or a service; and
inject the code into the instruction set for loading visual elements on the user interface based on at least on the estimated state position of the browsing journey of the user.
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the trigger condition is associated with a target set of one or more target state positions, and wherein the injection of the instruction set for loading visual elements on the user interface provided from the merchant hosting server occurs at a visual position corresponding to a visual frame associated with one of the one or more target state positions associated with the trigger condition.
6. The system of claim 5, wherein a machine learning model architecture representative of user preferences is maintained on the protected data storage, and the machine learning model architecture representative of user preferences is periodically trained based on action value pairs representing rendering characteristics of triggers associated with the navigation input from the user indicating, through the interactive visual element, that the trigger condition has positively interacted to optimize a loss function to tune the rendering characteristics to automatically improve a probability of a positive interaction; and wherein the machine learning model architecture representative of user preferences is utilized to determine the rendering characteristics associated with a interactive visual element associated with the trigger condition.
7. The system of claim 6, wherein the rendering characteristics include a selection of a target state position from the target set of the one or more target state positions, the selection of the target state position determining when in the browsing journey of the user the interactive visual element will be rendered.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein the one or more target state positions comprise one or more of: a research state, a browsing state, a purchasing state, a payment selection state, and a purchased state.
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the data sets representative of intercepted data communication messages between a user interface of a user and a merchant hosting server are intercepted from communications between at least one of a mobile application, a customized browser having interfaces for communicating the data communication messages, or a browser extension coupled to a browser, the browser extension having the interfaces for communicating the data communication messages.
10. The system of claim 5, wherein the rendering characteristics include at least one of a size, a position, a color, or an opacity of the interactive visual element.
1. A computer system for orchestrating user interface modifications, the system comprising:
a processor;
a communication interface;
a non-transitory computer readable memory in communication with the processor, the memory storing software code, when executed, cause the system to:
obtain through the communication interface, a first data set representative of intercepted data communication messages between a user interface of a user and a merchant hosting server, the first data set representing queries or navigation inputs entered by the user on the user interface;
obtain through the communication interface, a second data set representing an instruction set for loading visual elements on the user interface provided from the merchant hosting server;
analyze the first data set to obtain one or more user-specific characteristics;
determine, when the user-specific characteristics associated with the user satisfy one or more trigger conditions associated with a current resource offering; and
responsive to a determination that the user-specific characteristics associated with the user satisfy the one or more sets of trigger conditions:
inject, into the instruction set for loading the visual elements on the user interface provided from the merchant hosting server, code corresponding to an interactive visual element corresponding to the current resource offering such that the user interface renders the interactive visual element; and
receive a navigation input from the user indicating, through the interactive visual element, that the current resource offering is executed by the user; and
execute a set of machine codes associated with the current resource offering to cause the user interface to render a shopping interface for the user.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the trigger condition is associated with at least one of an in-journey offer, an in-journey coupon, and an in-journey product recommendation.
3. The wherein at least one of the first data set and the second data set are provided to a database corresponding to the user stored on a protected data storage to update a user profile of the user.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the software code, when executed, further cause the system to:
process one or both of the first data set and the second data set to estimate a state position of a browsing journey of the user for browsing a product or a service; and
inject the code into the instruction set for loading visual elements on the user interface based on at least on the estimated state position of the browsing journey of the user.
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the trigger condition is associated with a target set of one or more target state positions, and wherein the injection of the instruction set for loading visual elements on the user interface provided from the merchant hosting server occurs at a visual position corresponding to a visual frame associated with one of the one or more target state positions associated with the trigger condition.
6. The system of claim 5, wherein a machine learning model architecture representative of user preferences is maintained on the protected data storage, and the machine learning model architecture representative of user preferences is periodically trained based on action value pairs representing rendering characteristics of triggers associated with the navigation input from the user indicating, through the interactive visual element, that the trigger condition has positively interacted to optimize a loss function to tune the rendering characteristics to automatically improve a probability of a positive interaction; and wherein the machine learning model architecture representative of user preferences is utilized to determine the rendering characteristics associated with a interactive visual element associated with the trigger condition.
7. The system of claim 6, wherein the rendering characteristics include a selection of a target state position from the target set of the one or more target state positions, the selection of the target state position determining when in the browsing journey of the user the interactive visual element will be rendered.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein the one or more target state positions comprise one or more of: a research state, a browsing state, a purchasing state, a payment selection state, and a purchased state.
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the data sets representative of intercepted data communication messages between a user interface of a user and a merchant hosting server are intercepted from communications between at least one of a mobile application, a customized browser having interfaces for communicating the data communication messages, or a browser extension coupled to a browser, the browser extension having the interfaces for communicating the data communication messages.
9. The system of claim 5, wherein the rendering characteristics include at least one of a size, a position, a color, or an opacity of the interactive visual element.
Claims, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,260,442. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. As may be seen in Table 2 below, claim 11 of the instant application is identical to claim 11 of the ‘442 patent, claim 12 of the instant application is identical to claim 12 of the ‘442 patent, claim 13 of the instant application is identical to claim 13 of the ‘442 patent, claim 14 of the instant application is identical to claim 14 of the ‘442 patent, claim 15 of the instant application is identical to claim 15 of the ‘442 patent, claim 16 of the instant application is identical to claim 16 of the ‘442 patent, claim 17 of the instant application is identical to claim 17 of the ‘442 patent, and claim 18 of the instant application is identical to claim 18 of the ‘442 patent. Claim 19 of the instant application is identical to claim 20 of the ‘442 patent, except for the claim number. All of this may be seen in Table 2 below.
Table 2
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 12,260,442
11. A computer-implemented method for orchestrating user interface modifications, the method comprising:
obtaining, through a communication interface, a first data set representative of intercepted data communication messages between a user interface of a user and a merchant hosting server, the first data set representing queries or navigation inputs entered by the user on the user interface;
obtaining, through the communication interface, a second data set representing an instruction set for loading visual elements on the user interface provided from the merchant hosting server;
analyzing the first data set to obtain one or more user-specific characteristics;
determining, when the user-specific characteristics associated with the user satisfy one or more trigger conditions associated with a current resource offering; and
responsive to a determination that the user-specific characteristics associated with the user satisfy the one or more sets of trigger conditions:
injecting, into the instruction set for loading the visual elements on the user interface provided from the merchant hosting server, code corresponding to an interactive visual element corresponding to the current resource offering such that the user interface renders the interactive visual element;
receiving a navigation input from the user indicating, through the interactive visual element, that the current resource offering is executed by the user; and
executing a set of machine codes associated with the current resource offering to cause the user interface to render a shopping interface for the user.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the trigger condition is associated with at least one of an in-journey offer, an in-journey coupon, and an in-journey product recommendation.
13. The method of claim 11, wherein at least one of the first data set and the second data set are provided to a database corresponding to the user stored on a protected data storage to update a user profile of the user.
14. The method of claim 13, comprising:
processing one or both of the first data set and the second data set to estimate a state position of a browsing journey of the user for browsing a product or a service; and
injecting the code into the instruction set for loading visual elements on the user interface based on at least on the estimated state position of the browsing journey of the user.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the trigger condition is associated with a target set of one or more target state positions, and wherein the injection of the instruction set for loading visual elements on the user interface provided from the merchant hosting server occurs at a visual position corresponding to a visual frame associated with one of the one or more target state positions associated with the trigger condition.
16. The method of claim 15, wherein a machine learning model architecture representative of user preferences is maintained on the protected data storage, and the machine learning model architecture representative of user preferences is periodically trained based on action value pairs representing rendering characteristics of triggers associated with the navigation input from the user indicating, through the interactive visual element, that the trigger condition has positively interacted to optimize a loss function to tune the rendering characteristics to automatically improve a probability of a positive interaction; and wherein the machine learning model architecture representative of user preferences is utilized to determine the rendering characteristics associated with a interactive visual element associated with the trigger condition.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the rendering characteristics include a selection of a target state position from the target set of the one or more target state positions, the selection of the target state position determining when in the browsing journey of the user the interactive visual element will be rendered.
18. The method of claim 17, wherein the one or more target state positions comprise one or more of: a research state, a browsing state, a purchasing state, a payment selection state, and a purchased state.
19. The method of claim 11, wherein the data sets representative of intercepted data communication messages between a user interface of a user and a merchant hosting server are intercepted from communications between at least one of a mobile application, a customized browser having interfaces for communicating the data communication messages, or a browser extension coupled to a browser, the browser extension having the interfaces for communicating the data communication messages.
11. A computer-implemented method for orchestrating user interface modifications, the method comprising:
obtaining, through a communication interface, a first data set representative of intercepted data communication messages between a user interface of a user and a merchant hosting server, the first data set representing queries or navigation inputs entered by the user on the user interface;
obtaining, through the communication interface, a second data set representing an instruction set for loading visual elements on the user interface provided from the merchant hosting server;
analyzing the first data set to obtain one or more user-specific characteristics; determining, when the user-specific characteristics associated with the user satisfy one or more trigger conditions associated with a current resource offering; and
responsive to a determination that the user-specific characteristics associated with the user satisfy the one or more sets of trigger conditions:
injecting, into the instruction set for loading the visual elements on the user interface provided from the merchant hosting server, code corresponding to an interactive visual element corresponding to the current resource offering such that the user interface renders the interactive visual element;
receiving a navigation input from the user indicating, through the interactive visual element, that the current resource offering is executed by the user; and
executing a set of machine codes associated with the current resource offering to cause the user interface to render a shopping interface for the user.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the trigger condition is associated with at least one of an in-journey offer, an in-journey coupon, and an in-journey product recommendation.
13. The method of claim 11, wherein at least one of the first data set and the second data set are provided to a database corresponding to the user stored on a protected data storage to update a user profile of the user.
14. The method of claim 13, comprising:
processing one or both of the first data set and the second data set to estimate a state position of a browsing journey of the user for browsing a product or a service; and
injecting the code into the instruction set for loading visual elements on the user interface based on at least on the estimated state position of the browsing journey of the user.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the trigger condition is associated with a target set of one or more target state positions, and wherein the injection of the instruction set for loading visual elements on the user interface provided from the merchant hosting server occurs at a visual position corresponding to a visual frame associated with one of the one or more target state positions associated with the trigger condition.
16. The method of claim 15, wherein a machine learning model architecture representative of user preferences is maintained on the protected data storage, and the machine learning model architecture representative of user preferences is periodically trained based on action value pairs representing rendering characteristics of triggers associated with the navigation input from the user indicating, through the interactive visual element, that the trigger condition has positively interacted to optimize a loss function to tune the rendering characteristics to automatically improve a probability of a positive interaction; and wherein the machine learning model architecture representative of user preferences is utilized to determine the rendering characteristics associated with a interactive visual element associated with the trigger condition.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the rendering characteristics include a selection of a target state position from the target set of the one or more target state positions, the selection of the target state position determining when in the browsing journey of the user the interactive visual element will be rendered.
18. The method of claim 17, wherein the one or more target state positions comprise one or more of: a research state, a browsing state, a purchasing state, a payment selection state, and a purchased state.
20. The method of claim 11, wherein the data sets representative of intercepted data communication messages between a user interface of a user and a merchant hosting server are intercepted from communications between at least one of a mobile application, a customized browser having interfaces for communicating the data communication messages, or a browser extension coupled to a browser, the browser extension having the interfaces for communicating the data communication messages.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 21 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,260,442. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. Claim 20 of the instant application and claim 21 of the ‘442 patent are identical except for the claim numbers. As this involves the comparison of only one pending claim to one claim in the ‘442 patent, no table follows.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are objected to for informalities, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and rejected for statutory double patenting, but recite non-obvious subject matter.
Claims 11-19 are objected to for informalities, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and rejected for statutory double patenting, but recite non-obvious subject matter.
Claim 20 is objected to for informalities, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and rejected for statutory double patenting, but recites non-obvious subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The computer system of claim 1, computer-implemented method of claim 11, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 21 are novel and non-obvious. Stewart (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0102428) discloses (paragraph 56, emphasis added), “Virtual device driver 51 intercepts messages from input driver 25 which are to be received by its normal device driver 21, which typically is provided by a vendor of input device 25.” Then: “When an input, such as a mouse click, is received in any of those demarcated areas virtual device driver 51 can determine that this mouse click is relevant to application 11 and can divert a mouse click from device driver 21 to be received by application 11.” See also Figure 3. This is the closest prior art of record to the “obtain through the communication interface, a first data set representative of intercepted data communication messages between a user interface of a user and a merchant hosting server, the first data set representing queries or navigation inputs entered by the user on the user interface” limitation, and is not identical.
Blass (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0121980) discloses (paragraph 40, emphasis added), “The apparatus includes a non-transitory storage medium storing a set of computer readable instructions, and a control circuit configured to execute the set of computer readable instructions. The control circuit is configured to provide an online shopping interface to a user, the online shopping interface being configured to display a plurality of items for sale based on data from an inventory database”, etc., thus disclosing executing a set of machine codes to cause a user interface to render a shopping interface for a user, in accordance with the last element of claim 1 and parallel independent claims 11 and 20. Callaghan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0325605) has disclosures regarding banner advertisements and related items and operations; see, for example, paragraph 28, beginning from “The tailored advertisements can be presented to the target user 110 while the target user 110 is shopping at a particular online marketplace web site operated by an Internet-based retailer, or they can be presented to the target user 110 in the form of a customized ‘banner ad’ displayed, for example, while browsing a web page at random anywhere on the Internet.” However, Stewart, Blass, and Callaghan do not disclose the system of claim 1 as a whole, including the various other limitations, or the method of claim 11 or storage medium of claim 20 as a whole. No other prior art documents of record supply the deficiencies of Stewart, Blass, and Callaghan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stewart (U.S. Patent 8,881,047) discloses systems and methods for dynamic background user interface(s). Kim et al. (U.S. Patent 9,098,701) disclose an application mobile injection device. Wolfkill et al. (U.S. Patent 9,837,124) disclose a layered interactive video platform for interactive video experiences. Ortiz et al. (U.S. Patent 11,893,597) has been considered for possible double patenting (rejections not made).
Stewart (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0102428) discloses systems and methods for dynamic background user interface(s). Callaghan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0325605) disclose leveraging a social network for targeted advertising. Wolfkill et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0004861) disclose a layered interactive video platform for interactive video experiences. Blass (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0121980) discloses a system and method for providing a dynamic shopping interface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D ROSEN, whose telephone number is (571)272-6762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM-5:30 PM, M-F. Non-official/draft communications may be faxed to the examiner at 571-273-6762, or emailed to Nicholas.Rosen@uspto.gov (in the body of an email, please, not as an attachment).
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, Marissa Thein, can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/NICHOLAS D ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 September 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights