DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the preliminary amendment filed on 20 March 2025.
Claims 13 and 14 are amended.
Claims 12 and 15 are canceled.
Claims 16-22 are new and have been added.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16-22 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 18 April 2025, has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite the in response to a trigger operation on a second control in the information configuration page, generating an object recommendation interface corresponding to the information configuration page, which appears to be typographical errors, as a trigger operation, a second control, and an object recommendation interface have all been recited in independent claims 1 and 13, which claims 3 and 17 depend from respectively. The claims should be recited as the in response to [[a]] the trigger operation on [[a]] the second control in the information configuration page, generating [[an]] the object recommendation interface corresponding to the information configuration page. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the displaying an interface description page, which appears to be a typographical error, as claim 6 already recites the interface description page, and claim 7 depends from claim 6. The claim should be recited as the displaying [[an]] the interface description page. 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 1-11, 13-14, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-11 are directed to a method, claims 13 & 16-22 are directed to a device (system), and claim 14 is directed to a product of manufacture (non-transitory computer-readable medium).
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of generating a recommendation. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
in response to a first operation, displaying an information configuration page;
in response to a trigger operation on a first control in the information configuration page, displaying an object aggregation page, wherein the object aggregation page comprises recommendation description information of at least one candidate object corresponding to a target account;
in response a selection operation on recommendation description information of at least one target object in the at least one candidate object, updating the information configuration page by using the recommendation description information of the at least one target object; and
in response to a trigger operation on a second control in the information configuration page, generating an object recommendation corresponding to the information of configuration page, wherein the object recommendation is used for displaying the recommendation description information of the at least one target object.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of generating a recommendation, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recite steps for generating the recommendation that include displaying information configuration page, displaying object aggregation page that includes recommendation description information for at least one candidate object for a target account, updating the information configuration by using recommendation description information of the target object, and generating the recommendation of the object that corresponds with the information configuration, where the recommendation is displayed with the description information for the at least one target object, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements: an object recommendation interface, and the object recommendation interface.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., generating a recommendation) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f)Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 of an object recommendation interface, and the object recommendation interface, are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claims 13 and 14 are similar in nature to representative claim 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that independent claim 13 includes the additional elements of an electronic device, comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, where the at least one memory is configured to store instructions or computer programs, at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions or computer programs in the at least one memory to cause the electronic device to execute, and independent claim 14 includes the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium stores instructions or computer programs, and when the instructions or computer programs are run on a device, the device is caused to execute. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements in claims 13 and 14, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 13 and 14 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claims 13 and 14 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 13 and 14, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, independent claims 13 and 14 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 16-22, depending from claims 1 and 13, respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the representative independent claim 1, nor independent claims 13 and 14. The claims of 2-11 and 16-22 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that the dependent claims include the additional elements of an information management page and interface (claims 3 & 17), interface display end request (claims 4 & 18), and a plurality of interfaces (claims 9, 10, 11, 21, & 22), Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 3-4, 9-11, 17-18, and 21-22 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 3-4, 9-11, 17-18, and 21-22 considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 5-8, 15-16, and 19-20 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the dependent claims 2-11 and 16-22 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 1-11, 13-14, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selinger, D., et al. (PGP No. US 2018/0082350 A1), in view of Faricy, F., et al. (PGP No. US 2023/0316382 A1).
Claim 1-
Selinger discloses a recommendation method, applied to a first client, comprising:
in response to a first operation, displaying an information configuration page (Selinger, see: paragraph [0013] disclosing “Web pages may be generated and displayed to a user that includes images of and/or other indications of number items”; and paragraph [0016] disclosing “users 140 may interact with an embodiment of the MSPR service 105 [i.e., first operation]” and “dynamically generated product recommendations”);
in response to a trigger operation on a first control in the information configuration page, displaying an object aggregation page, wherein the object aggregation page comprises recommendation description information of at least one candidate object corresponding to a target user (Selinger, see: paragraph [0013] disclosing “display to the user that includes selectable information about numerous recommended items” and “the user makes a current selection [i.e., a trigger operation] of one of the recommended items, a second group of recommended items [i.e., at least one candidate object] may be dynamically generated for the user”; and paragraph [0016] disclosing “product information” and “may include descriptions, prices, availability and other information about the products”; and paragraph [0018] disclosing “providing one or more user-selectable controls that allow users to select a displayed recommended product”);
in response to a selection operation on recommendation description information of at least one target object in the at least one candidate object, updating the information configuration page by using the recommendation description information of the at least one target object (Selinger, see: paragraph [0013] disclosing “the user makes a second current selection [i.e., a selection operation] of one of the recommended items of the second group, a third group of recommended items may similarity be dynamically generated for the user based at least in part on the current selection)”; and paragraph [0032] further disclosing “selected item 6 includes item 6 image 210 and various product information 212 (e.g., product name, description, price)”; and see: FIGS. 2A and 2B); and
in response to a trigger operation on a second control in the information configuration page, generating an object recommendation interface corresponding to the information configuration page, wherein the object recommendation interface is used for displaying the recommendation description information of the at least one target object (Selinger, see: paragraph [0036] disclosing “after the multiple item images corresponding to the new second group of recommended products is displayed to the user in recommended item area” and “user interacts with the display 200 to select item 109 image…to indicate an interest in item 109” and “the modified display 200 of FIG. 2C, multiple item images corresponding to a new third group of products recommended for the user are currently being displayed…in response to the user selection of item 109. Information related to the selected item 109 is now displayed in the selected item area 205” and “the information related to the selected item 109 includes item 109 image 220, and various product information 222”; And see: FIG. 2B and FIG. 2C).
Although Selinger discloses a target user a trigger operation on a first control in an information configuration page that comprises recommendations and description information for candidate objects that correspond to a particular user (Selinger, see: paragraphs [0016] and [0018]), Selinger does not specifically describe a target account. Selinger does not disclose:
a target account;
Faricy, however, does teach:
a target account (Faricy, see: paragraph [0110] teaching “a user may be required to provide credentials (e.g., authentication credential) to login a pre-registered account”; Also see FIG. 3 rendering an interface with a control to allow a user to enter credentials for an account, such as providing an email and password.).
This step of Faricy is applicable to the method of Selinger, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to dynamic website updates in product recommendations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Selinger, to include the feature of a target account, as taught by Faricy. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Selinger to improve dynamic product recommendations to a user and improving overall performance of the platform, by customizing elements of the user interface (Faricy, see: at least paragraph [0003] and paragraph [0006]).
Claim 2-
Selinger in view of Faricy teaches the method according to claim 1, as described above.
Selinger discloses:
wherein the information configuration page comprises an information configuration area and a preview area (Selinger, see: paragraph [0036] disclosing “recommended item area 270 of FIG. 2B, the user interacts with the display 200 to select item 109 image 254 at grid position 272d:270c”); and
the updating the information configuration page by using the recommendation description information of the at least one target object (Selinger, see: paragraph [0036] disclosing “Information related to the selected item 109 is now displayed in the selected item area 205, such as to indicate that item 109 is a currently selected product”), comprises:
adding the recommendation description information of the at least one target object in the information configuration area (Selinger, see: paragraph [0036] disclosing “user-selectable control 224 to obtain additional information related to item 109”), and
updating an interface to be used that is displayed in the preview area by using the recommendation description information of the at least one target object (Selinger, see: paragraph [0036] disclosing “Information related to the item 6 is now being displayed in a new location in the selected item area 205”).
Claim 3-
Selinger in view of Faricy teaches the method according to claim 1, as described above.
Selinger discloses:
wherein before the in response to a first operation, displaying an information configuration page, the method further comprises (Selinger, see: paragraph [0013] disclosing “Web pages may be generated and displayed to a user that includes images of and/or other indications of number items”):
displaying an information management page, wherein the information management page comprises interface description information of at least one first recommendation interface corresponding to the target account (Selinger, see: paragraph [0016] disclosing “users 140 may interact with an embodiment of the MSPR service 105 and “dynamically generated product recommendations” and “product information” and “may include descriptions, prices, availability and other information about the products”);
the in response to a first operation, displaying an information configuration page, comprises (Selinger, see: paragraph [0013] disclosing “Web pages may be generated and displayed to a user that includes images of and/or other indications of number items”):
in response to a trigger operation on a third control in the information management page, switching from the information management page to the information configuration page (Selinger, see: paragraph [0038] disclosing “FIG. 2C each correspond to a recommended product from the new third group of products recommended for the user by the MSPR service, with the item images being displayed” and “a number of new item images are displayed in the recommended item area 270 (e.g., item images corresponding to items 200-209) along with a number of previously displayed item images (e.g., images for items 11, 110, 100, 2, 101 and 8). Several of the previously displayed item images are now being displayed in FIG. 2C in different grid positions”); and
the in response to a trigger operation on a second control in the information configuration page, generating an object recommendation interface corresponding to the information configuration page (Selinger, see: paragraph [0036] disclosing “after the multiple item images corresponding to the new second group of recommended products is displayed to the user in recommended item area”, comprises:
in response to the trigger operation on the second control in the information configuration page, generating the object recommendation interface corresponding to the information configuration page, switching from the information configuration page to the information management page (Selinger, see: paragraph [0036] disclosing “user interacts with the display 200 to select item 109 image” and “the modified display 200 of FIG. 2C, multiple item images corresponding to a new third group of products recommended for the user are currently being displayed…in response to the user selection of item 109” and “the information related to the selected item 109 includes item 109 image 220, and various product information 222, as well as user-selectable control 224 to obtain additional information related to item 109”; And see: FIG. 2C rendering the interface including the control allowing for a user to select “view details” for an item, switching from the information configuration page to the information management page.), and
updating the information management page by using interface description information of the object recommendation interface, wherein the updated information management page comprises the interface description information of the object recommendation interface and the interface description information of the at least one first recommendation interface (Selinger, see: paragraph [0037] disclosing “the new third group of recommended products may be generated by aggregating results of the recommendation strategy used to identify the initial group of recommended products (e.g., recent top selling items within a particular category), results of the previously used recommendation strategy”).
Claim 4-
Selinger in view of Faricy teaches the method according to claim 3, as described above.
Selinger discloses:
wherein the updated information management page further comprises a first candidate control corresponding to the object recommendation interface (Selinger, see: paragraph [0038] disclosing “the item images being displayed in accordance with the relevance scores determined for the third group” and “images are displayed in the recommended item area 270 (e.g., item images corresponding to items 200-209” and “previously displayed item images are now being displayed in FIG. 2C in different grid positions than prior to the user selection of item 109 along with a number of previously displayed item images”; and see: FIG. 2D); and
the method further comprises: when the first candidate control corresponding to the object recommendation interface is in a first display state, in response to a trigger operation on the first candidate control, adjusting state description information in the interface description information of the object recommendation interface to first state description information (Selinger, see: paragraph [0038] disclosing “previously displayed item images are now being displayed in FIG. 2C in different grid positions than prior to the user selection of item 109 along with a number of previously displayed item images”), and/or, sending an interface display end request corresponding to the object recommendation interface to a second client, wherein a preset association relationship exists between an account corresponding to the second client and the target account, and the interface display end request is used for requesting to end a recommendation- display process for the object recommendation interface (Selinger, see: paragraph [0038] disclosing “the new fourth group of recommended products may be generated by aggregating results of the recommendation strategy used to identify the initial group of recommended products (e.g., recent top selling items in a category) and the results of the recommendation strategy used to identify products that are similar to or otherwise related to the selected item 109”); or
the method further comprises: when that a publishing duration of the object recommendation interface is determined to meet a duration threshold corresponding to the object recommendation interface, adjusting the state description information in the interface description information of the object recommendation interface to the first state description information, and/or, sending the interface display end request corresponding to the object recommendation interface to the second client.
(Examiner’s note: The claims recite or the method further comprises, which is interpreted that only one of the methods needs to be disclosed by Selinger.)
Claim 5-
Selinger in view of Faricy teaches the method according to claim 3, as described above.
Selinger discloses:
wherein the updated information management page further comprises a second candidate control corresponding to the object recommendation interface (Selinger, see: paragraph [0040] disclosing “as a result of the de-selection, recommended product item 200 has now been determined to have a highest relevance score, and as such, the corresponding item 200 image 256 is now displayed in the position of highest prominence in area 270”); and
the method further comprises:
when the second candidate control corresponding to the object recommendation interface is in a second display state, in response to a trigger operation on the second candidate control, switching from the information management page to an information configuration page corresponding to the object recommendation interface (Selinger, see: paragraph [0040] disclosing “each of the multiple item images currently displayed in the recommended item area 270 corresponds to a recommended product from the resulting new fourth group of products recommended for the user by the MSPR service, with the item images being displayed in accordance with relevance scores of the corresponding recommended products for the fourth group. In particular, in this example, as a result of the de-selection, recommended product item 200 has now been determined to have a highest relevance score”).
Claim 6-
Selinger in view of Faricy teaches the method according to claim 3, as described above.
Selinger discloses:
wherein the updated information management page further comprises a third candidate control corresponding to the object recommendation interface (Selinger, see: paragraph [0036] disclosing “the information related to the selected item 109 includes item 109 image 220, and various product information 222, as well as user-selectable control 224 to obtain additional information related to item 109”); and the method further comprises:
in response to a trigger operation on the third candidate control, displaying an interface description page corresponding to the object recommendation interface on the information management page, wherein the interface description page is used for displaying the object recommendation interface and the interface description information of the object recommendation interface (Selinger, see: paragraph [0036] disclosing “Information related to the item 6 is now being displayed in a new location in the selected item area 205, such as item 6 image 230, and user-selectable control 232 to de-select or otherwise remove the item 6 from being a currently selected item”).
Claim 7-
Selinger in view of Faricy teaches the method according to claim 6, as described above.
Selinger discloses:
wherein after the displaying an interface description page corresponding to the object recommendation interface on the information management page (Selinger, see: paragraph [0036] disclosing “Information related to the item 6 is now being displayed in a new location in the selected item area 205, such as item 6 image 230, and user-selectable control 232 to de-select or otherwise remove the item 6 from being a currently selected item”) the method further comprises:
when a fourth control in the interface description page is in a third display state, in response to a trigger operation on the fourth control, jumping to an information configuration page corresponding to the object recommendation interface (Selinger, see: paragraph [0037] disclosing “the new third group of recommended products may be generated by aggregating results of the recommendation strategy used to identify the initial group of recommended products (e.g., recent top selling items within a particular category), results of the previously used recommendation strategy to identify products that are similar to or otherwise related to the selected item 6”).
Claim 8-
Selinger in view of Faricy teaches the method according to claim 6, as described above.
Selinger discloses:
wherein when state description information in the interface description information of the object recommendation interface is second state description information, the interface description page is further used for displaying prompt information corresponding to the second state description information (Selinger, see: paragraph [0038] disclosing “multiple item images currently provided in the recommended item area 270 of FIG. 2C each correspond to a recommended product from the new third group of products recommended for the user by the MSPR service, with the item images being displayed in accordance with the relevance scores determined for the third group”; And see FIG. 2C that allows the user to select more details in the “view details” control for a specific item.).
Claim 9-
Selinger in view of Faricy teaches the method according to claim 3, as described above.
Selinger discloses further comprising:
when the information management page is displaying and the information management page comprises at least one second recommendation interface, in response to a condition input operation triggered on an information filtering condition input area in the information management page, displaying interface description information of a target recommendation interface in the at least one second recommendation interface on the information management page (Selinger, see: paragraph [0036] disclosing “user-selectable control 226 to de-select or otherwise remove the item 109 from being a currently selected item”; and see: pargraph [0039] disclosing “the de-selection of item 6 has initiated the determination of a new fourth group of recommended items for the user by the MSPR service” and “multiple item images corresponding to the new fourth group of recommended products are currently being displayed in the recommended item area 270”),
wherein the interface description information of the target recommendation interface meets an information filtering condition corresponding to the condition input operation, the at least one second recommendation interface comprises the at least one first recommendation interface (Selinger, see: pargraph [0039] disclosing “one result of the user having de-selected item 6, the selected item area 205 in FIG. 2D no longer includes information related to item 6, although information related to item 109 is still present” and “the de-selection of item 6 has initiated the determination of a new fourth group of recommended items for the user by the MSPR service” and “multiple item images corresponding to the new fourth group of recommended products are currently being displayed in the recommended item area 270”), or the at least one second recommendation interface comprises the at least one first recommendation interface and the object recommendation interface.
Claim 10-
Selinger in view of Faricy teaches the method according to claim 3, as described above.
Selinger discloses further comprising:
when the information management page is displaying and the information management page comprises at least one second recommendation interface, in response to an account switching operation triggered in the information management page, on the information management page, switching from interface description information of the at least one second recommendation interface corresponding to the target account to interface description information of at least one third recommendation interface corresponding to a user (Selinger, see: paragraph [0038] disclosing “multiple item images currently provided in the recommended item area 270 of FIG. 2C each correspond to a recommended product from the new third group of products recommended for the user by the MSPR service, with the item images being displayed in accordance with the relevance scores determined for the third group”; And see FIG. 2C that allows the user to select more details in the “view details” control for a specific item.);
wherein the account switching operation is used for switching, the at least one second recommendation interface comprises the at least one first recommendation interface (Selinger, see: paragraph [0038] disclosing “the item images being displayed in accordance with the relevance scores determined for the third group”; And see FIG. 2C that displays the interface allowing for the user to select a control to see more details for the item.), or the at least one second recommendation interface comprises the at least one first recommendation interface and the object recommendation interface.
Selinger does not disclose:
an account input area in the page;
interface corresponding to an account to be used;
the target account to the account to be used in the account input area;
Faricy, however, does teach:
an account input area in the page (Faricy, see: paragraph [0110] teaching “a user may be required to provide credentials (e.g., authentication credential) to login a pre-registered account”; Also see FIG. 3 rendering an interface with a control to allow a user to enter credentials for an account, such as providing an email and password.);
interface corresponding to an account to be used (Faricy, see FIG. 3 displaying an interface with a control to allow a user to enter credentials for an account, such as providing an email and password.);
the target account to the account to be used in the account input area (Faricy, see: paragraph [0068] teaching “a user may be associated with a unique user device. Alternatively, a user may be associated with a plurality of user devices. A user may be registered with the platform. In some cases, for a registered user, user profile data may be stored in a database (e.g., database 123) along with a user ID uniquely associated with the user. The user profile (e.g., personalizer profile) data may include, for example, user names, user ID, identity”).
This step of Faricy is applicable to the method of Selinger, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to dynamic website updates in product recommendations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Selinger, to include the features of an account input area in the page, interface corresponding to an account to be used, and the target account to the account to be used in the account input area, as taught by Faricy. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Selinger to improve dynamic product recommendations to a user and improving overall performance of the platform, by customizing elements of the user interface (Faricy, see: at least paragraph [0003] and paragraph [0006]).
Claim 11-
Selinger in view of Faricy teaches the method according to claim 1, as described above.
Selinger discloses:
wherein after the displaying an information configuration page, the method further comprises (Selinger, see: paragraph [0038] disclosing “each correspond to a recommended product from the new third group of products recommended for the user by the MSPR service, with the item images being displayed”):
in response to a trigger operation on a fifth control in the information configuration page, displaying a template configuration page (Selinger, see: paragraph [0038] disclosing “previously displayed item images are now being displayed in FIG. 2C in different grid positions [i.e., template configuration] than prior to the user selection of item 109”); and
in response to a template updating operation on the template configuration page, updating the information configuration page by using a recommendation interface template corresponding to the template updating operation, wherein the updated information configuration page is used for displaying at least one information configuration item in the recommendation interface template (Selinger, see: paragraph [0038] disclosing “many other of the previously displayed item images are no longer displayed in the recommended item area 270, such as based on newly determined relevance scores of the recommended items for the third group”).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to a system. Claim 13 recites limitations that are similar in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. It is noted that Claim 13 also recites the features of an electronic device, comprising at least one a processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory is configured to store instructions or computer programs; and the processor is configured to execute the instructions or computer programs in the at least one memory, which are also disclosed by Selinger (Selinger, see: Claim 82 disclosing “one or more processors; and one or more memories with stored instructions that, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, cause the at least one processor to perform interactions”). Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Claim 14 recites limitations that are similar in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. It is noted that Claim 14 also recites the features of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium stores instructions or computer programs, and when the instructions or computer programs are run on a device, the device is caused, which are also disclosed by Selinger (Selinger, see: Claim 86 disclosing “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored contents that cause a computing device to perform automated operations”). Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is directed to a system. Claim 16 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 2, which is directed towards a method. Claim 16 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a system. Claim 17 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 3, which is directed towards a method. Claim 17 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is directed to a system. Claim 18 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 4, which is directed towards a method. Claim 18 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is directed to a system. Claim 19 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 5, which is directed towards a method. Claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is directed to a system. Claim 20 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 6, which is directed towards a method. Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 6.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is directed to a system. Claim 21 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 9, which is directed towards a method. Claim 21 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 9.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is directed to a system. Claim 22 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 10, which is directed towards a method. Claim 22 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sanghavi, T., et al. (PGP No. US 2020/0372562 A1), describes a computing system that implements a database system for presentation at a client device. The GUI may display a designated one or more criteria for selecting one of a plurality of recommendations for a target object instance associated with a designated object definition.
Graff, U. (PGP No. US 2012/0005016 A1), describes methods and a system for providing a local targeted advertising campaign, providing a semantic network having a plurality of segmentation paths, wherein each segmentation path is related to a predefined physical site and includes at least two interconnected nodes, metrics to a node from said at least two nodes, inheriting said at least one metrics from said node to a higher-level node from among said at least two interconnected nodes, and providing a local targeted advertising campaign with regard to at least one predefined physical site based on said inheriting of said at least one metrics.
Non-patent literature (NPL), titled Create and Manage Dynamic Pages More Efficiently, published on salesforce.com (2020), describes how dynamic product listings in page design for users can improve product visibility and more efficient management of the webpages.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights