[24]7.AI, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 21, 2021

2020006636 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/819,336 08/05/2015 Bhupinder SINGH 110524-8096.US01 5505
22918 7590 04/21/2021
PERKINS COIE LLP - PAO General
P.O. BOX 1247
SEATTLE, WA 98111-1247
EXAMINER
MITROS, ANNA MAE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BHUPINDER SINGH
__________________

Appeal 2020-006636
Application 14/819,336
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JAMES P. CALVE, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–9 and 11–24, which are all of the pending
claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies 24[7].ai, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
2 Claim 10 is cancelled. Final Act. 2. Appellant’s Amendment in Response
to Final Office Action Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, filed on December 3, 2019,
would have cancelled claims 9, 16, and 22, but the Examiner denied entry of
the Amendment on December 19, 2019. See Advisory Action, mailed Dec.
26, 2019 (annotating “Do not enter / ANNA MAE MITROS/ 12/19/2019”
on the proposed amendment to the claims submitted on December 3, 2019).
Appeal 2020-006636
Application 14/819,336

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 12, and 18 are independent. Representative claim 1 recites:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
facilitating, by a processor, a capturing of interaction data
and non-interaction data related to one or more interactions of a
customer, on at least one interaction channel from among a
plurality of interaction channels including a web interaction
channel, the interaction data comprising information related to
elements of interest to the customer from among a plurality of
elements presented to the customer during the one or more
interactions, the non-interaction data comprising information
related to one or more remaining elements of non-interest to the
customer from among the plurality of elements presented to the
customer during the one or more interactions;
predicting, by the processor, an intention of the customer
based on the interaction data and the non-interaction data; and
causing, by the processor, customization of an interaction
experience to the customer in the web interaction channel based
on the predicted intention of the customer by displaying a
customer-intention specific version of a website including a
plurality of sections that each contains a personalized group of
related customer-specific content items of a webpage, the
customer-intention specific version of the website being
indicative of the predicted intention of the customer, wherein a
first section of the plurality of sections is displayed more
prominently than a second section of the plurality of sections of
the webpage, which enables ease of viewability of the first
section of the webpage by relocating the first section of the
webpage on the webpage.
Appeal Br. 2 (Claims Appendix).3

3 All citations to the Claims Appendix refer to the Appeal Brief filed on
April 6, 2020, in response to a Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief.
All other citations to the Appeal Brief refer to the Appeal Brief filed on
March 9, 2020.
Appeal 2020-006636
Application 14/819,336

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–9 and 11–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite.
Claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 12–16, 18–22, and 24 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Middleton,4 Agarwal,5 Daly,6 and
Arora.7
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Middleton, Agarwal, Daly, Arora, Bouzid,8 and Smith.9
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Middleton, Agarwal, Daly, Arora, and Wehmann.10
Claims 11, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Middleton, Agarwal, Daly, Arora, and Ilagan.11
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–9 and 11–23 for Indefiniteness
The Examiner determines that claims 1, 12, and 18 are indefinite
because reciting a first section of plural sections displayed more prominently
than a second section of the webpage to enable ease of viewability of the
first section of the webpage by relocating the first section on the webpage is
unclear in meaning as to whether the ease of viewability of the first section
results from displaying it more prominently or relocating it. Final Act. 4.

4 US 6,393,407 B1, issued May 21, 2002.
5 US 2012/0245990 A1, published September 27, 2012.
6 US 2013/0031470 A1, published January 31, 2013.
7 US 2007/ 0150368 A1, published June 28, 2007.
8 US 2014/0024350 A1, published January 23, 2014.
9 US 2014/0236663 A1, published August 21, 2014.
10 US 2010/0250714 A1, published September 30, 2010.
11 US 2012/0320903 A1, published December 20, 2012.
Appeal 2020-006636
Application 14/819,336

4
Appellant does not present argument for this rejection. See Appeal
Br. 8–17. Therefore, we summarily sustain this rejection.
Claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 12–16, 18–22, and 24
Rejected over Middleton, Agarwal, Daly, and Arora
Appellant argues the claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 8–17. We
select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
The Examiner finds that Middleton captures customer interaction and
non-interaction data as a customer interacts with elements of interest in web
pages. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner cites Agarwal for predicting customer
intentions based on prospect data to provide customized content. Id. at 6.
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to include customer
intent predictions in Middleton’s method to improve Middleton’s ability to
create a customized list of service consumption/purchase possibilities as
Predicted Intent of the customer as Agarwal teaches. Id. at 6–7.
The Examiner cites Daly to teach customization of a webpage content
by relocating webpage sections to personalize website layout and displaying
some sections more prominently than others for ease of viewing. Id. at 7–8.
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify Middleton
further to include layout changes as taught by Daly to improve Middleton by
arranging multiple pieces of information of content modules in accordance
with a personalized template that is consistent with a user’s current and past
behaviors and interests as Daly teaches. Id. at 8.
The Examiner cites Arora to teach personalized content items that are
customer specific and determines that it would have been obvious to modify
Middleton further to provide such personalized content that is relevant and
particular to a user for a customized interaction experience. Id. at 8–9.
Appeal 2020-006636
Application 14/819,336

5
Appellant argues that the proposed modification of Daly and Arora
would render Daly unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because Daly is
not directed to personalizing the content selected to be displayed but instead
relates to personalizing the way content is displayed for each user. Appeal
Br. 12–13. Appellant argues that Arora includes content specific to a user in
a section of a webpage, but Daly does not personalize content. Id. at 12.
This argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not modify
Daly. The rejection modifies Middleton’s method based on the teachings of
Agarwal, Daly, and Arora discussed above. Final Act. 5–9. The Examiner
finds that Middleton captures customer interaction and non-interaction data
to provide a customized interaction, and Daly customizes webpage layouts
by relocating and displaying some sections of a webpage more prominently
than other sections to personalize the layout for each user. Id. at 5–6, 7–8.
The Examiner determines that a skilled artisan would have been motivated
to use Daly’s layout change teaching in the customized interaction method
of Middleton and Agarwal to improve the customized user interaction. The
modification would arrange sections of information and content modules in
accordance with a user’s current and past behaviors and interests to be easily
accessible and logically placed in a single location as Daly teaches and thus
would provide similar benefits in Middleton’s method. Id. at 8–9.
The predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions is likely obvious, as is the use of a known technique that has been
used to improve one method to improve similar methods in the same way, if
their use and the application is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, as
the Examiner correctly determines. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007); Final Act. 8–9.
Appeal 2020-006636
Application 14/819,336

6
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner’s proposed modification of
Daly and Arora changes the principle of Arora is not persuasive for the same
reasons. See Appeal Br. 13–14. The Examiner is not modifying Daly or
Arora. Rather, the Examiner is modifying the method of Middleton based
on the teachings of Agarwal, Daly, and Arora, as discussed above.
Appellant further argues that the combination of Daly and Arora is
based on improper hindsight because Daly personalizes the way that content
is displayed for each user or group, rather than personalizing the content
itself, whereas Arora includes sections of webpages with content specific to
a user. Appeal Br. 14–15. Appellant contends that a skilled artisan would
not have been motivated to personalize content for users as Arora teaches,
while keeping the content the same for users as Daly teaches, and, therefore,
the improved system cannot be based on the cited combination of references
absent impermissible hindsight. Id. at 15–16.
Appellant’s individual attack on the references does not address their
teachings as combined by the Examiner. The Examiner finds that Middleton
captures customer interaction and non-interaction data and uses that data to
provide a customized interaction experience for a customer. Final Act. 5–6.
Agarwal generates a customer intent prediction based on prospect data to
provide the customer with a customized version of a website display. Id. at
6. Daly provides a customized user webpage experience by relocating the
sections of a webpage. The Examiner determines that this technique would
improve Middleton’s method similarly by improving a user’s personalized,
customized experience on a website by making the customized content more
easily accessible and logically placed in a single location according to user
preferences as Daly teaches. See id. at 6–8; Daly ¶¶ 4, 32, 63.
Appeal 2020-006636
Application 14/819,336

7
The Examiner’s reasoning is supported by the express teachings of
each reference of these features and their benefits. These teachings provide
rational underpinnings for the proposed combination of references and also
address Appellant’s hindsight argument. In re Cree, Inc., 818 F.3d 694, 702
n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding appellant’s hindsight argument was addressed
by showing that a proper motivation to combine the references existed).
Appellant asserts that Arora teaches away from Daly. Appeal Br. 16–
17. The Examiner is not combining Aurora and Daly. The Examiner is
modifying Middleton with teachings of Agarwal and Arora to improve the
customized content and Daly to improve the content layout. Final Act. 5–9.
“A prior art reference evidences teaching away if it ‘criticize[s],
discredit[s], or otherwise discourage[s] the solution claimed.” In re Brandt,
886 F.3d 1171, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alterations in original) (quoting In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Appellant has not identified
any teachings in Middleton, Agarwal, or Arora that criticize, discredit, or
discourage a skilled artisan from providing personalized layouts of content
as Daly teaches. Nor does Daly criticize, discredit, or discourage the use of
Daly’s customized layout technique with customized content such that the
personalized content is arranged in a way that is personalized to the user’s
preferences based on information known about the user or a user’s profile.
Daly provides a personalized experience by changing the layout of content
shown to users. The other references provide a personalized, customized
experience by changing the content that is provided to users. The Examiner
reasonably determines that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to
improve Middleton’s customized content with a customized layout of that
content to make it more viewable and accessible as taught by Daly.
Appeal 2020-006636
Application 14/819,336

8
Appellant presents no evidence or argument that Daly is incompatible
with the customized content methods of Middleton, Agarwal, and Arora, or
that Daly’s method would not improve the customized content method of
Middleton. Daly’s personalized layout provides an effective way to leverage
the customized content of Middleton without the need to obtain additional,
personalized content, and it arranges advertisements with content in a way
that is more valuable to advertisers. Daly ¶ 65. Middleton also desires to
improve user interactions with advertisements to provide more effective
advertising. Middleton, 2:20–3:2, 4:7–6:29.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5, 7–
9, 12–16, 18–22, and 24, which fall with claim 1.
Rejections of Dependent Claims 4, 6, 11, 17, and 23
Appellant does not argue the rejections of claims 4, 6, 11, 17, and 23.
See Appeal Br. 8–17. Thus, we summarily sustain these rejections.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 11–23 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–9, 11–23
1–3, 5, 7–9,
12–16, 18–
22, 24
103 Middleton,
Agarwal, Daly,
Arora
1–3, 5, 7–
9, 12–16,
18–22, 24

4 103 Middleton,
Agarwal, Daly,
Arora, Bouzid,
Smith
4
6 103 Middleton,
Agarwal, Daly,
Arora, Wehmann
6
Appeal 2020-006636
Application 14/819,336

9
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
11, 17, 23 103 Middleton,
Agarwal, Daly,
Arora, Ilagan
11, 17, 23
Overall
Outcome
1–9, 11–24
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED