DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is in response to Response to Election/Restriction filed 09/03/2026.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Claim 1-10 have been elected without traverse.
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed applications as divisional application U.S. app. no. 18/207,612 filed 06/08/2023 which is a continuation of U.S. application no. 15/770,899 filed 04/25/2018 which is a 371 of international PCT/2015/058109 filed 10/29/2015 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,720,940 B2 (U.S. app. no. 15/770,899).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1-18 are anticipated by reference claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,720,940 B2. This is a non-statutory, obviousness-type Double Patenting rejection with an anticipation analysis. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: determine if the user is likely to be a buyer or a non-buyer, based on the interaction data and the selected model; and present the user with an offer that encourages the user to buy from the website upon the determination that the user is a buyer; Claim 2 recites: the user is likely a non-buyer and as the user browses the website, the receiving of interaction data and determining if the user is likely to be a buyer or a non-buyer; Claim 4 recites: wherein to determine if the user is likely to be a buyer or a non-buyer the processor is to..; Claim 6 recites: wherein the determination regarding the user being a buyer or a non-buyer is based on the comparison, rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the first recitation of a buyer or a non-buyer and interaction data is the same or different from the subsequent recitation of a buyer or a non-buyer and interaction data. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites: transition probabilities from prior buyers and prior non-buyers, rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the first recitation of prior buyers and non-buyers in claim 1 is the same or different from the subsequent recitation of prior buyers and prior non-buyers. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
The term “encourages” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “an offer that encourages the user to buy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how to measure encouraging a user. How does an offer encourage a user to buy? What does it mean to encourage? How is encouraging a user measured? Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in:
Claim 1 recites: receive from a client device, interaction data of a user browsing the website; select one of a plurality of models for the user based on the interaction data, each of the models…; determine if the user is likely to be a buyer or a non-buyer, based on the interaction data and the selected model;
Claim 3 recites: wherein each conceivable transition is a transition that could have occurred based on transitions from the first URL to the at least one intermediate node and from the at least one intermediate node to the second URL recorded in the historical interaction data.
Claim 5 recites: compare transition probabilities in the user's transition matrix with transition probabilities from prior buyers and prior non-buyers.
Claim 9 recites: compare the probability of each edge with a significance threshold measure; select one of the buyer model and the augmented buyer based on the comparison;
Claim 10 recites: record the user's buying decision.
Appropriate correction or clarification 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. See MPEP § 2106. In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a system (which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under revised step 2:
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes 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). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding representative independent claim 1, recites the abstract idea of:
receive…, interaction data of a user browsing a website;
select one of a plurality of models for the user based on the interaction data, each of the models trained on historical interaction data of prior buyers and non-buyers that browsed the website, the plurality of models comprising at least one augmented buyer model based on probabilities of conceivable transitions, …
determine when the user is likely to be a buyer or a non-buyer, based on the interaction data and the selected model;
present the user with an offer that encourages the user to buy… upon the determination that the user is a buyer.
The above-recited limitations amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity as they relate to sales activities and commercial interactions because the claim is directed towards determining whether a user is likely to buy something or just browse based on interaction data and the selected model and present the user with an offer to buy. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.
The Step 2A (prong 2) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
A system comprising: a processor to: receive from a client device… each conceivable transition including a multi-step transition between a first URL and a second URL via at least one intermediate URL of the web site; and …from the website …(claim 1);
the processor is to: … and as the user browses the website,… (claim 2);
transitions from the first URL to the at least one intermediate node and from the at least one intermediate node to the second URL recorded in the historical interaction data (claim 3);
the processor is to: record transitions of the user between URLs of the website as the interaction data (claim 4);
the processor (claims 5, 8, 9, 10).
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claims and dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. See MPEP § 2106.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
A system comprising: a processor to: receive from a client device… each conceivable transition including a multi-step transition between a first URL and a second URL via at least one intermediate URL of the web site; and …from the website …(claim 1);
the processor is to: … and as the user browses the website,… (claim 2);
transitions from the first URL to the at least one intermediate node and from the at least one intermediate node to the second URL recorded in the historical interaction data (claim 3);
the processor is to: record transitions of the user between URLs of the website as the interaction data (claim 4);
the processor (claims 5, 8, 9, 10).
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because the recitations above do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukose et al. (US Pub. No. 20100114654 A1, hereinafter “Lukose”) in view of Vijayaraghavan et al. (US Pub. No. 20140222503A1, hereinafter “Vijayaraghavan”).
Regarding claim 1
Lukose discloses a system comprising:
a processor to: receive from a client device, interaction data of a user browsing a website (Lukose, [0019]: clickstream is the record of computer user actions while web browsing; [0020]: record clickstream at computer; [0083]: gather clickstream data);
select one of a plurality of models for the user based on the interaction data, each of the models trained on historical interaction data of prior buyers and non-buyers that browsed the website, (Lukose, [0029]: models would be computed from the clickstream and predicted likelihood that the use is a purchaser or non-purchaser; [0027]: purchasing behavior of the users is extracted from the training data set and the users are divided into two categories: purchasers and non-purchasers; [0033]: URL for each internet user’s visit; [0049]: capture user behavior across multiple websites),
determine when the user is likely to be a buyer or a non-buyer, based on the interaction data and the selected model (Lukose, FIG.6, [0052]: predicted buyer and non-buyer; [0029]: models would be computed from the clickstream and predicted likelihood that the use is a purchaser or non-purchaser; [0027]: purchasing behavior of the users is extracted from the training data set and the users are divided into two categories: purchasers and non-purchasers); and
present the user with an offer that encourages the user to buy from the website upon the determination that the user is a buyer (Lukose, [0018]: targeted advertising presented to the users based on intent to purchase product they are interested in; [0022]: present personalized content to a user based on the user's actions within the site (e.g. product recommendations); [0079]: present the user with advertising information).
Lukose ([0033]) discloses URL for each user visit but does not explicitly disclose:
the plurality of models comprising at least one augmented buyer model based on probabilities of conceivable transitions, each conceivable transition including a multi-step transition between a first URL and a second URL via at least one intermediate URL of the web site.
However, Vijayaraghavan teaches that it is known to include:
the plurality of models comprising at least one augmented buyer model based on probabilities of conceivable transitions, each conceivable transition including a multi-step transition between a first URL and a second URL via at least one intermediate URL of the web site (Vijayaraghavan, [0050]: a user visit during an online session comprises of a subset of these URLs; [0063] and [0068]: user-related data includes sequence of pages (URLs) visited during a session; [0064-0065]: user-related data which is captured is modeled and employ model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the known technique of Lukose with Vijayaraghavan to include the aforementioned limitations since such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Lukose would continue to teach URLs user visited except multi-step transitions between multiple URLs are taught according to the teachings of Vijayaraghavan. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Regarding claim 2
The combination of Lukose and Vijayaraghavan teaches the system of claim 1, the processor is to: repeat iteratively upon the determination that the user is likely a non-buyer and as the user browses the website, the receiving of interaction data and determining if the user is likely to be a buyer or a non-buyer (Lukose, [0027]: training data set and the users are divided into two categories: purchasers and non-purchasers. The data set is then analyzed to discover behavior patterns ("features") which can be used to discriminate between purchasers and non-purchasers; [0028]: training data set are then applied to real time clickstreams to indicate the likelihood of a future purchase by a current online user; [0029]: iteratively update the model; [0038]: a classifier module into predicted buyer and non-buyer groups).
Regarding claim 3
The combination of Lukose and Vijayaraghavan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each conceivable transition is a transition that could have occurred based on transitions from the first URL to the at least one intermediate node and from the at least one intermediate node to the second URL recorded in the historical interaction data (Vijayaraghavan, [0050]: a user visit during an online session comprises of a subset of these URLs; [0063] and [0068]: the sequence of pages (URLs) visited during a session).
Regarding claim 4
The combination of Lukose and Vijayaraghavan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein to determine if the user is likely to be a buyer or a non-buyer the processor is to: record transitions of the user between URLs of the website as the interaction data; and construct a transition matrix for the user based on the recorded transitions of the user (Lukose, FIG.5, [0050]: user clickstream resulting in matrix; FIG. 6, [0051-0052]: matrix classifications for user, who may be a predicted buyer or a predicted non-buyer; [0033]: URL for each internet user’s visit; [0049]: capture user behavior for number of sessions across multiple websites; [0020]: the user-centric clickstream must capture the user's actions over multiple sites; [0024]: observing the behavior of that user occur across a number of websites; [0027]: the total number of pages viewed on a site; [0032]: online behavior includes shopping websites and search engines; [0037]: database).
Regarding claim 5
The combination of Lukose and Vijayaraghavan teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the processor is to: compare transition probabilities in the user's transition matrix with transition probabilities from prior buyers and prior non-buyers (Lukose, [0077-0078]: prediction of purchase likelihood must be made in advance of the actual purchase (e.g. latent period); [0051]: matrix to predict whether an actual purchase will be made by comparing the predicted outcome with actual purchase behavior; [0052]: matrix illustrating the potential classifications for user, who may be a predicted buyer or a predicted non-buyer).
Regarding claim 6
The combination of Lukose and Vijayaraghavan teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the determination regarding the user being a buyer or a non-buyer is based on the comparison (Lukose, [0052]: matrix illustrating the potential classifications for user, who may be a predicted buyer or a predicted non-buyer; [0027]: analyze data set to discriminate between purchasers and non-purchasers; [0029]: models would be computed from the clickstream and predicted likelihood that the use is a purchaser or non-purchaser).
Regarding claim 7
The combination of Lukose and Vijayaraghavan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of models further comprise a buyer model based on actual transition data for users who are likely to make a purchase (Lukose, [0029]: models would be computed from the clickstream and actual purchase behavior analyzed to update model; [0050]: the actual purchase behavior of each user is extracted from the user clickstream; [0051]: model can then be determined by comparing the predicted outcome with actual purchase behavior).
Regarding claim 8
The combination of Lukose and Vijayaraghavan teaches the system of claim 7, wherein to select one of the plurality of models the processor is to: select one of the buyer model, the augmented buyer model and a non-buyer model (Lukose, [0027]: a variety of models can be used to generate and to predict purchasing behavior; [0051]: various models can then be applied to the information).
Regarding claim 9
The combination of Lukose and Vijayaraghavan teaches the system of claim 8, wherein if it is determined that the user is likely to be a buyer, the processor is to: calculate probabilities associated with each edge connecting nodes in a graph including the conceivable transitions; compare the probability of each edge with a significance threshold measure; select one of the buyer model and the augmented buyer based on the comparison (Lukose, [0066]: probability of user being a buyer estimated by equation; [0067]: cutoff threshold of predicting a buyer and classification of model adjusted based on cutoff threshold; FIG.7, [0068]: graph and threshold values to predict if predicted buyers are actual buyers; FIG. 8, [0069]: graph for varying threshold values within the logical regression model; [0070]: compare various classification models based on graphs in FIGS.7-8; FIG. 9, [0071]: graphs and cutoff thresholds for each graph to accurately predict buyers).
Regarding claim 10
The combination of Lukose and Vijayaraghavan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is to: record the user's buying decision during a session for inclusion into the historical interaction data (Lukose, [0083]: the actual purchase behavior of the user could be observed and analyzed to iteratively update the model; [0033]: data records for a given user who makes a purchase online; [0022]: records historical purchases; [0037]: database).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited as Bhogal et al. (US Pub. No. 20160269473 A1) related to generating website recommendations based on user web browsing and Ghose et al. (US Pub. No. 20140317120 A1) related to identification of points in a user Web journey where the user is more likely to accept an offer for interactive assistance. The non-patent literature, Predicting behavior, in IEEE Intelligent Systems, relates to predictive analytics using machine learning to make predictions about future or unknown outcomes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATASHA DEVI RAMPHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2644. The examiner can normally be reached 11 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
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 5712726764 and 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.
/LATASHA D RAMPHAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights