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 .
Amendment
This Office Action is made in response to amendment, filed 7/31/2026. Applicant has amended claims 25, 36, 38, and 49; No claims have been cancelled or added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments set forth in the “Remarks” filed July 31, 2026, have been fully considered. The terminal disclaimer has been accepted, and the obviousness-type double patenting rejections are withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection of claims 25 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Applicant argues that Lee and Dengler fail to teach the claimed embedded interactive presentation template. The revised § 103 rejections additionally rely on KAMADOLLI (US 2017/0185612) for that teaching, as explained below in the rejection. This revised combination also addresses the dependent claim arguments relaying on the same asserted deficiency.
The § 103 rejections of claim 36 and 49 are withdrawn. These claims are objected to as dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the respective base claims and any intervening claims.
Objections to the claims
Claims 36 and 49 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Lee, Dengler, and KAMADOLLI, individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest removing any unmodified modules from the plurality of modules prior to presenting the modified version of the interactive presentation template, as recited in claims 36 and 49..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 25, 27-32, 35, 37-38, 40-45, 48, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., Pat No US 11,170,424 (hereafter Lee) in view of Dengler et al., Pat No US 8,095,565 (hereafter Dengler) and further in view of KAMADOLLI et al., Pub No US 2017/0185612 (hereafter KAMADOLLI).
Regarding Claim 25, Lee discloses a method for generating an interactive presentation on an automated platform [col.1 lines 35-37: “Disclosed embodiments provide systems and methods for dynamically ingesting and monitoring online products.”; and col.2 lines 27-32: “The system may standardize the format of the one or more product images and the product metadata such that the metadata and images are displayed in a convenient and easy-to-digest way, independent of the format of the images and metadata on the source webpage.”; and col.2 lines 37-40: “The standardization may include adding a user input mechanism (e.g., an interactive button) to each of the one or more product images, and/or allowing a user to select the product images corresponding to products of interest.” Thus, Lee discloses an automated system for dynamically ingesting and presenting product information which under BRI, corresponds to generating an interactive presentation.], the method comprising:
embedding a preconfigured template in a webpage associated with a plurality of products [col.1 lines 38-41: “The method may begin with a user accessing a webpage on which one or more products may be listed for sale.”; and col.1 lines 43-48: “The system may receive the request to access the webpage from a user device, and may determine whether the webpage has an associated predetermined template that may allow the system to determine the location of any product images and associated product metadata stored on the webpage.”; and col.18 lines 46-50: “For example, the predetermined template may contain instructions for locating and ingesting one or more product images and the associated product metadata from the webpage.” Thus, teaches a webpage on which products are listed for sale and an associated predetermined template used to locate and ingest product images and product metadata for the webpage. Under BRI, the claimed “preconfigured template” reads on Lee’s “predetermined template” associated with a webpage containing product listings.];
receiving an indication of a user's interest in a product of the plurality of products [col.2 lines 40-42: “The system may receive a user input indicating the user's selection of a product of interest.”; and col.4 lines 13-17: “The method may further include receiving a user input based on an interaction with the user input mechanism associated with a first ingested product image and a first ingested product metadata.”; and col.4 lines 17-19: “The user input may be indicative of a selection of the first ingested product image and the first ingested product metadata.” Lee teaches receiving user input indicating selection of a product of interest. The selected product image and associated product metadata correspond to a product in the displayed set, thereby teaching the claimed indication of the user’s interest in a product.];
dynamically retrieving metadata associated with the product from the webpage [col.1 lines 49-52: “If a predetermined template is located, the system may utilize the predetermined template to ingest the one or more product images and the metadata associated with the one or more product images.”; and col.2 lines 21-26: “The system may then ingest the one or more product images and their associated product metadata from the webpage based on the trained machine learning algorithm analysis and the manual identification for display inside of an API that may operate on backend system server or remotely executed on a user device.”; and col.10 lines 1-3: “the system may ingest the one or more product images and the associated product metadata from the webpage.”; and col.10 lines 9-12: “In some embodiments, all the steps of method 100 may happen in substantially real-time (e.g., on the order of a few seconds) except for the manual identification step described with respect to step 114.” Thus, discloses retrieving/ingesting product metadata associated with product images from the webpage, including via a predetermined template and associated processing. Lee also teaches that the steps may occur in substantially real time. Thus, Lee teaches retrieving/ingesting product metadata associated with product images from the webpage.], wherein the metadata includes a description of product features associated with the product [col.4 lines 30-33: “In some embodiments, the associated product metadata may include a make, a model, a year, a VIN, a product price, a mileage, a product location, a shipping fee, a webpage URL, or some combinations thereof.”; and col.7 lines 50-59: “For example, the predetermined template may include dynamic queries that may be in the form of a regular expression, a DOM query, or an XPath query. The product of interest may be a vehicle. Further, the product metadata may include a vehicle make, a vehicle model, a vehicle model year, a vehicle price, a mileage, a vehicle location, a shipping fee (if the vehicle is not local to the user), and a webpage URL on which the vehicle is advertised.”; and col.18 lines 38-40: “the one or products may represent cars and trucks for sale, each car and truck having searchable features or attributes (e.g., associated product metadata).” Lee’s product metadata includes make, model, year, VIN, price, mileage, location, shipping fee, and webpage URL, which are descriptive attributes/features of the product. Lee also expressly refers to cars and trucks having searchable features or attributes identified as associated metadata. Thus, the metadata includes descriptions of product features associated with the product.]; and
presenting, via the webpage, a modified version of the template corresponding to the product [col.10 lines 36-41: “In step 120, the system may configure for display, in substantially real time (e.g., within a few seconds), the ingested one or more product images and their associated product metadata. The ingested one or more product images may be displayed in a standardized format independent of a format of the webpage.”; and col.10 lines 49-53: “Within the presentation to the user, each of the vehicle images may include a user input mechanism, allowing the user to select (e.g., via an input/output on a user device 430, discussed in more detail in FIGS. 4-5) the vehicle images that are of interest to the user.” Discloses presenting the product-specific standardized display, including product images, associated product metadata, user input mechanisms, in substantially real time. Thus, Lee teaches presenting, via the webpage, a display generated from the predetermined template corresponding to the selected product,].
Lee does not explicitly disclose the template comprising a plurality of modules, wherein each module includes a default configuration of interactive objects; and reconfiguring the interactive objects of at least one module of the plurality of modules based on the description of product features; However, in analogous art, Dengler teaches that a user interface (UI) may include multiple controls, including panels, labels, buttons, links, list boxes, radio boxes, check boxes, and image controls (col.5 lines 45-49; col.13 line 55 – col.14 line 3). Under BRI, these UI/product-display components correspond to modules or modules-level UI components of a template. Dengler further teaches UI controls having associated properties and default values (col.14 lines 5-10; col.5 lines 45-49), thereby supporting modules having default configuration of interactive objects. Dengler also teaches that UI control properties are bound to a data source, wherein a binder obtains property values from the data source, sets control properties, and updates bound control properties when the data source changes, thereby teaching reconfiguration of interactive objects based on associated data (col.13 line 55 – col.14 line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee to include the modular UI structure and dynamic reconfiguration features, as taught by Dengler in order to improve flexibility and enable dynamic, data-driven customization of product presentations, with such modification yielding predictable results, namely, the presentation of product information using modular interface components that are automatically configured and updated based on associated product data (Dengler: col.14 lines 5-10; col.5 lines 45-49).
The combined teachings of Lee and Dengler do not explicitly disclose embedding a preconfigured interactive presentation template in a webpage associated with a plurality of products, the interactive presentation template comprising a plurality of modules, wherein each module includes a default configuration of interactive objects (bolded text not taught by the combination); and presenting, via the webpage, a modified version of the interactive presentation template corresponding to the product (bolded text not taught by the combination). However, in analogous art, KAMADOLLI teaches predefined webpage layouts stored for reuse [para.0037], interactive widgets positioned and integrated into sections of a webpage [paras.0031-0035], and a webpage presentation template containing multiple UI components whose associated data is retrieved to generate and render a final webpage layout [paras.0041-0042]. KAMADOLLI further teaches retrieving and rendering a selected section’s presentation template and updating the webpage layout in response to changes [paras.0043-0044]. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the reusable webpage layout containing interactive widgets corresponds to a preconfigured interactive presentation template incorporated into the webpage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Lee and Dengler to incorporate a reusable, interactive webpage presentation template, as taught by KAMADOLLI. This modification would permit reuse of a predefined presentation structure across products, reducing repeated interface configuration and providing consistent product presentations. Lee’s retrieved product-feature metadata would supply data for Dengler’s bound UI controls, allowing the interactive components to update automatically and the resulting product-specific presentation to be rendered through the webpage. The modification would have yielded predictable results: a webpage-integrated interactive presentation template whose components are configured using the selected product’s metadata and whose modified presentation is rendered through the webpage [KAMADOLLI, paras.0037, 0041-0044; Dengler’s data-binding teachings discussed above].
Regarding Claim 27, the combined teachings of Lee, Dengler, and KAMADOLLI disclose the method of claim 26, and Lee further discloses further comprising:
retrieving video content associated with the product [col.14 lines 5-10: Discloses retrieving (ingesting) product-related content and associated metadata (“In step 306, the system may ingest the one or more product images and the associated product metadata from the webpage.”).]; and
organizing the retrieved video content into at least one module of the plurality of modules based on the description of product features [col.13 lines 60-65: Discloses organizing product-related information based on product features described in metadata (“product metadata may include a vehicle make, a vehicle model, a vehicle model year, a vehicle price, a mileage…”).].
Regarding Claim 28, the combined teachings of Lee, Dengler, and KAMADOLLI disclose the method of claim 27, and Lee further discloses wherein retrieving the video content associated with the product comprises retrieving video content from the metadata associated with the product [col.14 lines 5-7: Discloses retrieval of product content together with metadata, supporting retrieval from metadata association (“the system may ingest the one or more product images and the associated product metadata from the webpage.”).].
Regarding Claim 29, the combined teachings of Lee, Dengler, and KAMADOLLI disclose the method of claim 28, and Lee further discloses wherein the metadata includes the video content or includes at least one link to the video content [col.13 line 67 - col.14 line 1: Discloses metadata including a webpage URL associated with product (“a webpage URL on which the vehicle is advertised.” A URL is a link to product related content.).].
Regarding Claim 30, the combined teachings of Lee, Dengler, and KAMADOLLI disclose the method of claim 25, and Lee further discloses wherein retrieving metadata associated with the product comprises retrieving a configuration file associated with the webpage [col.1 lines 43-52: Discloses retrieving a predetermined template associated with the webpage that is used to locate and ingest product metadata (“The system may receive the request to access the webpage from a user device, and may determine whether the webpage has an associated predetermined template that may allow the system to determine the location of any product images and associated product metadata stored on the webpage. If a predetermined template is located, the system may utilize the predetermined template to ingest the one or more product images and the metadata associated with the one or more product images.”). Under BRI, the predetermined template corresponds to a configuration file associated with the webpage.].
Regarding Claim 31, the combined teachings of Lee, Dengler, and KAMADOLLI disclose the method of claim 25, and Lee further discloses wherein reconfiguring the interactive objects of the at least one module of the plurality of modules based on the description of product features comprises adding interactive objects, removing interactive objects, modifying interactive objects, or any combination thereof [col.2 lines 33-40: Discloses adding an interactive button to the displayed content and configuring the display based on product metadata (“After standardization, which may occur in substantially real-time, the system may configure the ingested one more product images and their associated product metadata for display in the standardized format. The standardization may include adding a user input mechanism (e.g., an interactive button) to each of the one or more product images, and/or allowing a user to select the product images corresponding to products of interest.”). This corresponds to adding and modifying interactive objects based on product features.].
Regarding Claim 32, the combined teachings of Lee, Dengler, and KAMADOLLI disclose the method of claim 25, and Lee further discloses wherein reconfiguring the interactive objects of the at least one module of the plurality of modules based on the description of product features comprises reconfiguring the interactive objects based on a plurality of options for a product feature [col.2 lines 37-42: Discloses selectable options (product images corresponding to products of interest) and receiving user input selections (“The standardization may include adding a user input mechanism (e.g., an interactive button) to each of the one or more product images, and/or allowing a user to select the product images corresponding to products of interest. The system may receive a user input indicating the user's selection of a product of interest.”). These selections correspond to a plurality of product feature options used to reconfigure interactive objects.].
Regarding Claim 35, the combined teachings of Lee, Dengler, and KAMADOLLI disclose the method of claim 25, and Lee further discloses wherein receiving the indication of the user's interest in the product comprises receiving a user interaction with the product via the webpage [col.2 lines 37-42: Discloses receiving user input indicating selection of a product of interest via interaction (“The standardization may include adding a user input mechanism (e.g., an interactive button) to each of the one or more product images, and/or allowing a user to select the product images corresponding to products of interest. The system may receive a user input indicating the user's selection of a product of interest.”).].
Regarding Claim 37, the combined teachings of Lee, Dengler, and KAMADOLLI disclose the method of claim 25, and Dengler further discloses further comprising:
adding at least one module to the plurality of modules based on the metadata associated with the product [col.14 lines 32-37: Discloses controls (modules) are created and rendered based on metadata (“Flowing to operation 440, zero or more data sources may be bound to one or more of the controls defined for the UI through the metadata. Moving to operation 450, the metadata is interpreted and then rendered to display the UI. Each control of the UI form is rendered on the UI”), which corresponds to adding modules based on metadata.]. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 25.
Regarding Claim 38, Lee discloses a system for generating an interactive presentation on an automated platform [col.1 lines 35-37: “Disclosed embodiments provide systems and methods for dynamically ingesting and monitoring online products.”; and col.2 lines 27-32: “The system may standardize the format of the one or more product images and the product metadata such that the metadata and images are displayed in a convenient and easy-to-digest way, independent of the format of the images and metadata on the source webpage.”; and col.2 lines 37-40: “The standardization may include adding a user input mechanism (e.g., an interactive button) to each of the one or more product images, and/or allowing a user to select the product images corresponding to products of interest.” Thus, Lee discloses an automated system for dynamically ingesting and presenting product information which under BRI, corresponds to generating an interactive presentation.], the automated system comprising:
at least one memory for storing computer-executable instructions [col.16 lines 11-13: Discloses a random-access memory (RAM) 580 may be provided, where computer instructions and data may be stored.]; and
at least one processor for executing the instructions stored on the memory [col.16 lines 11-15: Discloses a random-access memory (RAM) 580 may be provided, where computer instructions and data may be stored in a volatile memory device for processing by the processor(s) 510.], wherein execution of the instructions programs the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
embedding a preconfigured template in a webpage associated with a plurality of products [col.1 lines 38-41: “The method may begin with a user accessing a webpage on which one or more products may be listed for sale.”; and col.1 lines 43-48: “The system may receive the request to access the webpage from a user device, and may determine whether the webpage has an associated predetermined template that may allow the system to determine the location of any product images and associated product metadata stored on the webpage.”; and col.18 lines 46-50: “For example, the predetermined template may contain instructions for locating and ingesting one or more product images and the associated product metadata from the webpage.” Thus, teaches a webpage on which products are listed for sale and an associated predetermined template used to locate and ingest product images and product metadata for the webpage. Under BRI, the claimed “preconfigured template” reads on Lee’s “predetermined template” associated with a webpage containing product listings.];
receiving an indication of a user's interest in a product of the plurality of products [col.2 lines 40-42: “The system may receive a user input indicating the user's selection of a product of interest.”; and col.4 lines 13-17: “The method may further include receiving a user input based on an interaction with the user input mechanism associated with a first ingested product image and a first ingested product metadata.”; and col.4 lines 17-19: “The user input may be indicative of a selection of the first ingested product image and the first ingested product metadata.” Lee teaches receiving user input indicating selection of a product of interest. The selected product image and associated product metadata correspond to a product in the displayed set, thereby teaching the claimed indication of the user’s interest in a product.];
dynamically retrieving metadata associated with the product from the webpage [col.1 lines 49-52: “If a predetermined template is located, the system may utilize the predetermined template to ingest the one or more product images and the metadata associated with the one or more product images.”; and col.2 lines 21-26: “The system may then ingest the one or more product images and their associated product metadata from the webpage based on the trained machine learning algorithm analysis and the manual identification for display inside of an API that may operate on backend system server or remotely executed on a user device.”; and col.10 lines 1-3: “the system may ingest the one or more product images and the associated product metadata from the webpage.”; and col.10 lines 9-12: “In some embodiments, all the steps of method 100 may happen in substantially real-time (e.g., on the order of a few seconds) except for the manual identification step described with respect to step 114.” Thus, discloses retrieving/ingesting product metadata associated with product images from the webpage, including via a predetermined template and associated processing. Lee also teaches that the steps may occur in substantially real time. Thus, Lee teaches retrieving/ingesting product metadata associated with product images from the webpage.], wherein the metadata includes a description of product features associated with the product [col.4 lines 30-33: “In some embodiments, the associated product metadata may include a make, a model, a year, a VIN, a product price, a mileage, a product location, a shipping fee, a webpage URL, or some combinations thereof.”; and col.7 lines 50-59: “For example, the predetermined template may include dynamic queries that may be in the form of a regular expression, a DOM query, or an XPath query. The product of interest may be a vehicle. Further, the product metadata may include a vehicle make, a vehicle model, a vehicle model year, a vehicle price, a mileage, a vehicle location, a shipping fee (if the vehicle is not local to the user), and a webpage URL on which the vehicle is advertised.”; and col.18 lines 38-40: “the one or products may represent cars and trucks for sale, each car and truck having searchable features or attributes (e.g., associated product metadata).” Lee’s product metadata includes make, model, year, VIN, price, mileage, location, shipping fee, and webpage URL, which are descriptive attributes/features of the product. Lee also expressly refers to cars and trucks having searchable features or attributes identified as associated metadata. Thus, the metadata includes descriptions of product features associated with the product.]; and
presenting, via the webpage, a modified version of the template corresponding to the product [col.10 lines 36-41: “In step 120, the system may configure for display, in substantially real time (e.g., within a few seconds), the ingested one or more product images and their associated product metadata. The ingested one or more product images may be displayed in a standardized format independent of a format of the webpage.”; and col.10 lines 49-53: “Within the presentation to the user, each of the vehicle images may include a user input mechanism, allowing the user to select (e.g., via an input/output on a user device 430, discussed in more detail in FIGS. 4-5) the vehicle images that are of interest to the user.” Discloses presenting the product-specific standardized display, including product images, associated product metadata, user input mechanisms, in substantially real time. Thus, Lee teaches presenting, via the webpage, a display generated from the predetermined template corresponding to the selected product,].
Lee does not explicitly disclose the template comprising a plurality of modules, wherein each module includes a default configuration of interactive objects; and reconfiguring the interactive objects of at least one module of the plurality of modules based on the description of product features; However, in analogous art, Dengler teaches that a user interface (UI) may include multiple controls, including panels, labels, buttons, links, list boxes, radio boxes, check boxes, and image controls (col.5 lines 45-49; col.13 line 55 – col.14 line 3). Under BRI, these UI/product-display components correspond to modules or modules-level UI components of a template. Dengler further teaches UI controls having associated properties and default values (col.14 lines 5-10; col.5 lines 45-49), thereby supporting modules having default configuration of interactive objects. Dengler also teaches that UI control properties are bound to a data source, wherein a binder obtains property values from the data source, sets control properties, and updates bound control properties when the data source changes, thereby teaching reconfiguration of interactive objects based on associated data (col.13 line 55 – col.14 line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee to include the modular UI structure and dynamic reconfiguration features, as taught by Dengler in order to improve flexibility and enable dynamic, data-driven customization of product presentations, with such modification yielding predictable results, namely, the presentation of product information using modular interface components that are automatically configured and updated based on associated product data (Dengler: col.14 lines 5-10; col.5 lines 45-49).
The combined teachings of Lee and Dengler do not explicitly disclose embedding a preconfigured interactive presentation template in a webpage associated with a plurality of products, the interactive presentation template comprising a plurality of modules, wherein each module includes a default configuration of interactive objects (bolded text not taught by the combination); and presenting, via the webpage, a modified version of the interactive presentation template corresponding to the product (bolded text not taught by the combination). However, in analogous art, KAMADOLLI teaches predefined webpage layouts stored for reuse [para.0037], interactive widgets positioned and integrated into sections of a webpage [paras.0031-0035], and a webpage presentation template containing multiple UI components whose associated data is retrieved to generate and render a final webpage layout [paras.0041-0042]. KAMADOLLI further teaches retrieving and rendering a selected section’s presentation template and updating the webpage layout in response to changes [paras.0043-0044]. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the reusable webpage layout containing interactive widgets corresponds to a preconfigured interactive presentation template incorporated into the webpage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Lee and Dengler to incorporate a reusable, interactive webpage presentation template, as taught by KAMADOLLI. This modification would permit reuse of a predefined presentation structure across products, reducing repeated interface configuration and providing consistent product presentations. Lee’s retrieved product-feature metadata would supply data for Dengler’s bound UI controls, allowing the interactive components to update automatically and the resulting product-specific presentation to be rendered through the webpage. The modification would have yielded predictable results: a webpage-integrated interactive presentation template whose components are configured using the selected product’s metadata and whose modified presentation is rendered through the webpage [KAMADOLLI, paras.0037, 0041-0044; Dengler’s data-binding teachings discussed above].
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Dengler and further in view of KAMADOLLI for the same reasons as set forth for Claim 27. Claim 40 recites corresponding limitations to those of Claim 27 in system form and does not further distinguish over the applied references.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Dengler and further in view of KAMADOLLI for the same reasons as set forth for Claim 28. Claim 41 recites corresponding limitations to those of Claim 28 in system form and does not further distinguish over the applied references.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Dengler and further in view of KAMADOLLI for the same reasons as set forth for Claim 29. Claim 42 recites corresponding limitations to those of Claim 29 in system form and does not further distinguish over the applied references.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Dengler and further in view of KAMADOLLI for the same reasons as set forth for Claim 30. Claim 43 recites corresponding limitations to those of Claim 30 in system form and does not further distinguish over the applied references.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Dengler and further in view of KAMADOLLI for the same reasons as set forth for Claim 31. Claim 44 recites corresponding limitations to those of Claim 31 in system form and does not further distinguish over the applied references.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Dengler and further in view of KAMADOLLI for the same reasons as set forth for Claim 32. Claim 45 recites corresponding limitations to those of Claim 32 in system form and does not further distinguish over the applied references.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Dengler and further in view of KAMADOLLI for the same reasons as set forth for Claim 35. Claim 48 recites corresponding limitations to those of Claim 35 in system form and does not further distinguish over the applied references.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Dengler and further in view of KAMADOLLI for the same reasons as set forth for Claim 37. Claim 50 recites corresponding limitations to those of Claim 37 in system form and does not further distinguish over the applied references.
Claims 26 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., Pat No US 11,170,424 (hereafter Lee) in view of Dengler et al., Pat No US 8,095,565 (hereafter Dengler) and further in view of KAMADOLLI et al., Pub No US 2017/0185612 (hereafter KAMADOLLI) and further in view of Puri et al., Pat No US 7,715,475 (hereafter Puri).
Regarding Claim 26, the combined teachings of Lee, Dengler, and KAMADOLLI disclose the method of claim 25, and the combined teachings do not disclose wherein each module of the plurality of modules includes a video content section. However, in analogous art, Puri discloses dividing video content into portions (i.e., segments/subsegments) and processing each portion individually. Specifically, Puri discloses that “The outcome of the classification and extraction process is a video stream divided into a number of portions on outputs 304 … The terms "portion" or "fragment" are used herein may most commonly refer to a video "segment" but as made clear above, these terms may refer to any of a segment, subsegment, “region of interest, or other data.” (col.5 lines 43-52). Puri further discloses that “The video segments extractor 606 outputs the segments and using a switch 650 operated under the control of a control circuit 646. The output of switch 644 is communicated to the control circuit 646. Using the new segments signal output from switch 644, the control circuit 646 controls switch 650 to transmit the respective segments for storage in one of a plurality of segment storage circuits 652A-652X. The various segments of the video content are available on lines 304A – 304X” (col.14 lines 30-40). Thus, Puri teaches that each segment/subsegment corresponds to a portion of video content that is separately processed and stored, thereby teaching a video content section associated with each processing unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, Dengler, and KAMADOLLI to include, for each module of the plurality of modules a corresponding video content section, as taught by Puri in order to enable modular processing of discrete portions of video content. Such modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, enabling each module to process a corresponding portion of video content (e.g., segment or subsegments), thereby improving processing efficiency and organization of video data (Puri: col.5 lines 43-52, col.14 lines 30-40).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Dengler, further in view of KAMADOLLI and further in view of Puri for the same reasons as set forth for Claim 26. Claim 39 recites corresponding limitations to those of Claim 26 in system form and does not further distinguish over the applied references.
Claims 33 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., Pat No US 11,170,424 (hereafter Lee) in view of Dengler et al., Pat No US 8,095,565 (hereafter Dengler) and further in view of KAMADOLLI et al., Pub No US 2017/0185612 (hereafter KAMADOLLI) and further in view of AHMED et al., Pub No US 2017/0201794 (hereafter AHMED).
Regarding Claim 33, the combined teachings of Lee, Dengler, and KAMADOLLI disclose the method of claim 25, and the combined teachings do not disclose further comprising:
organizing the plurality of modules in a video tree structure based on the description of product features, wherein each module of the plurality of modules includes at least one node of the video tree structure. However, in analogous art, AHMED discloses organizing video content processing based on hierarchical metadata corresponding to content features. Specifically, AHMED discloses that “Such aspects of the video content may include a genre, a subject, a scene, an object, a special attribute, and various other aspects of the video content.” [para.0019] and further discloses that “the metadata fields included in the metadata 210, 216 may be arranged in various hierarchical orders according to certain aspects of the display (e.g., display technology, etc.), as described in greater detail below.” [para.0025]. Additionally, Ahmed discloses that “A hierarchical order may exist among any two or more of the MFs… 'hierarchical order' and/or 'hierarchy' can refer to the sequence, arrangement, priority, organization, grouping, ranking, and/or arrangement of the MFs 301-306 of the metadata.” [para.0027] and that “the processor 220 may read the information included in the MFs 301-306 and perform one or more EOs on any portion of the video content according to setting associated with at least one of the MFs 301-306.” [para.0031]. Thus, AHMED teaches organizing feature-based elements of video content (e.g., genre, object, scene) into a hierarchical structure, where each metadata field corresponds to a portion of video content and is used for processing, thereby corresponding to nodes within a structured organization of video content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, Dengler, and KAMADOLLI to organize the plurality of modules in a video tree structure based on descriptions of product features, as taught by AHMED in order to enable hierarchical organization and priority processing of video content based on feature metadata. Such modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, organizing modules according to feature-based relationships to improve processing efficiency and structured management of video content [para.0004].
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Dengler, further in view of KAMADOLLI and further in view of AHMED for the same reasons as set forth for Claim 33. Claim 46 recites corresponding limitations to those of Claim 33 in system form and does not further distinguish over the applied references.
Claims 34 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., Pat No US 11,170,424 (hereafter Lee) in view of Dengler et al., Pat No US 8,095,565 (hereafter Dengler) and further in view of KAMADOLLI et al., Pub No US 2017/0185612 (hereafter KAMADOLLI) and further in view of Swaminathan et al., Pub No US 2014/0040026 (hereafter Swaminathan).
Regarding Claim 34, the combined teachings of Lee, Dengler, and KAMADOLLI discloses the method of claim 25, and the combined teachings do not disclose further comprising:
organizing the plurality of modules into different sections of an interactive video based on the description of product features. However, in analogous art, Swaminathan discloses organizing streaming content using a manifest file that includes media segment URLs arranged in a predetermined sequence and advertisement markers that define positions within the content where additional content is inserted (see, e.g., [para(s).0026, 0029, 0081]). Swaminathan further teaches modifying the arrangement of content segments based on contextual information (e.g., user preferences, advertisement insertion points) (see, e.g., [para(s).0019, 0028-0029, 0032, 0083]), thereby effectively structuring content into different portions or segments for presentation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, Dengler, and KAMADOLLI to organize the plurality of modules into different sections of an interactive video based on the description of product features, as taught by Swaminathan in order to provide structured and dynamically arranged content segments for improved presentation and customization. Such modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, organizing content into defined sections based on contextual descriptors (e.g., product features), which is a known technique for improving content navigation and user-specific presentation in multimedia systems [para.0002].
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Dengler, further in view of KAMADOLLI, and further in view of Swaminathan for the same reasons as set forth for Claim 34. Claim 47 recites corresponding limitations to those of Claim 34 in system form and does not further distinguish over the applied references.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knezi et al., (US 2022/0284495) – Discloses providing on demand live video broadcast in real time between a prospective purchaser/customer and a sales person which the purchaser could request on the same webpage of the product or service the purchaser was viewing. A live video broadcasting seeking additional information regarding an item (product or service) is carried out on the same product webpage [para.0004].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL OCAK whose telephone number is (571) 272-2774. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system; contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADIL OCAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights