Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Applicant’s Response
In Applicant’s Response dated 7/9/25, the Applicant amended claims 18, 28, canceled claims 68, and argued claims previously rejected in the Office Action dated 4/10/25. Claims 18-19, 22, 26-29, 32, 34-36, 41, 44, 47-64, 67, 69 and 70 are pending examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/8/26 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 18, 19, 22, 25, 28, 29, 32, 41, 44, 47-56, 61, 67 and 70 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yavilevich, United States Patent No.7941525, in view of Henry, United States Patent No. 9154365, in further view of Zambonini et al, WO2007/113573A2 (hereinafter “Zambonini”), Edmonds et al., Instrumenting the Dynamic Web (“Edmonds”) and Atterer et al., “Knowing the User’s Every Move – User Activity Tracking for Website Usability Evaluation and Implicit Interaction” (hereinafter “Atterer”).
Claim 18:
Yavilevich discloses:
A computer implemented method for creating a visual recreation of a user's interaction with a webpage the computer-implemented method comprising (see column 5 lines 55-67):
receiving recorded user interaction data in state of indexed elements of the web page indicative of one or more of a user’s movements and selections of static elements and dynamic element of an HTML document representative of the webpage (see column 5 lines 25-36 and column 14 lines 17-30). Yavilevich teaches receiving the compressed user activity information representative of activities performed by the user during a visit to a web page having dynamic and static elements. The recorded user interaction data includes changes in state of the indexed elements of the web page.
identifying the dynamic elements of the HTML document (see column 13 lines 35 – 39, column 14 lines 17-30). Yavilevich teaches identifying the dynamic elements of the HTML document.
creating a video record of the user’s interaction with the webpage, wherein the video record shows the user interaction with the webpage and is playable as a video replay of the user’s interaction with the webpage (see column 13 lines 17-31). Yavilevich teaches A reconstructed session information is saved in the storage media for analysis or playback. Reconstructed session information includes a visual representation of the user activities during a session.
providing the video record (see column 10 liens 31 -36). Yavilevich teaches provide a visual representation of user activities and can store the visual representation of the user activities in a storage unit for playback.
Yavilevich fails to expressly disclose processing interaction data received and normalizing the interaction data for a visualization replay.
Henry discloses:
normalizing data formats of the received user interaction data by rewriting one or more of the identified dynamic elements of the HTML document from the received user interaction data (see column 15 lines 12-21). Henry teaches the replay server removes any embedded JavaScript or other embedded dynamic logic from the pages to avoid any uncontrollable browser behavior during replay. Henry also teaches may be modified to redirect them back to the replay server for resolution; and
removing or masking document write calls (see column 15 lines 3-11). Henry teaches the replay server also removes any embedded JavaScript, VBScript or other embedded dynamic logic from pages presented for replay to avoid any uncontrollable browser behavior during replay. As noted above, any embedded external links that were present within the original collected data may be modified to redirect them back to the replay server for resolution, avoiding the need for the replay workstation to access the internet. Removal of external links and/or active page content (Such as JavaScript) can be provided as options for any given replay request.
masking one or more modifications written to the HTML document by one or more of the identified dynamic elements (see column 6 lines 59- column line 8 and column 15 lines 12-21). Henry teaches the replay server replacing URLs, content and redirecting links and data back to the replay server for resolution when modifications are written by the dynamic elements.
receiving additional feature information related to the webpage from a source other than the webpage itself, (see column 14 lines 35-53). Yavilevich teaches receiving additional feature information related to the webpage such as background. Yavilevich also teaches the additional feature could be from an email application and not the webpage itself.
creating a video record of the user’s interaction with the webpage by combining the normalized user interaction data and the additional feature information, wherein the video record shows the user interaction with the webpage and is playable as a video replay of the user’s interaction with the webpage (see column 16 lines 9-63). Henry teaches an interaction visualization replay of the user’s interactions including the normalized data and additional feature information.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method disclosed by Yavilevich to include processing and normalizing interaction data for the purpose of efficiently replaying user interaction data, as recited by Henry.
Yavilevich and Henry fail to expressly disclose changes within the elements of the webpage between a first and second time.
Zambonini discloses:
wherein the user interaction data has been recorded at fixed time intervals, each fixed time interval defined by a first time point and a second time point, the serialized text string indicating a change in state of indexed elements of the webpage between the first time point and the second time point (see pages 3-5). Zambonini teaches creating a collection of events with time stamps that records user interface events as they are occurring and the corresponding elements,
wherein the first time point is a prior transmission time of recorded user interaction data and the second time point is a current transmission time of recorded user interaction data (see page 3). Zambonini teaches a timeline having timestamps. A user can start/stop recording at different times and the prior transmission times are saved.
creating a video record of the user’s interaction with the webpage between the first time point and second time point (see pages 3 and 4). Zambonini teaches creating videos to view the interaction data at different points instantaneously;
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method disclosed by Yavilevich, Henry and Weiss to include videos indicating change at different time points of interactions and page elements for the purpose of efficiently providing video analysis of interaction data, as recited by Zambonini.
Yavilevich, Henry, and Zambonini fail to expressly disclose a serialized text string.
Edmonds discloses:
a serialized text string at fixed time intervals, the serialized text string (see Section 7.2). Edmonds teaches sending the event data as serialized text.
processing the user interaction data to remove data relating to redundant or similar events in the user interaction data (see Table 1.) Edmonds teaches a capability of removing the event from the log/serialized text string based on if the underlying element is different than the last move. If same element is the same and state change is the same, then the event data will be redundant and not logged.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method disclosed by Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini and Edmonds to include storing interaction/event data as serialized text for the purpose of efficiently storing event data for easy transport, as recited by Edmonds.
Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini and Edmonds fail to teach receiving additional feature information related to the webpage such as a document object model.
Atterer discloses:
receiving additional feature information related to the webpage from a source other than the webpage itself, the additional feature information comprising a document object model (see page 6, Section 4.2.2.). Atterer teaches receiving additional feature information related to the webpage such as DOM during tracking to have element data related to the events being tracked.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method disclosed by Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini and Edmonds to include receiving DOM information from a proxy for the purpose of efficiently storing event data with element data during tracking of interactions, as recited by Atterer.
Claim 19:
Yavilevich discloses:
wherein one or more of the dynamic elements comprise JavaScript (see column 14 line 17-30). Yavilevich teaches JavaScript.
Claim 22:
Yavilevich discloses:
wherein one or more of the dynamic elements comprise AJAX requests (see column 14 line 17-30). Yavilevich teaches AJAX.
Claims 28, 29, 32, 61:
Although claims 28, 29, 32 and 61 are non-transitory computer-readable medium claims, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as claim 18, 19, 22, 57, respectively.
Claim 41:
Yavilevich discloses:
wherein the additional feature information is not part of the user interaction data (see column 7 lines 64 – column 8 line 8). Yavilevich teaches wherein the information related to the user interaction is not captured with the user interaction data.
Claim 44:
Although claim 44 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as claim 41.
Claim 47:
Yavilevich discloses:
receiving a document object model not related to the user interaction for creating the video record by combining the document object model with the user interaction data and the additional feature information (see column 8 lines 8-15). Yavilevich teaches additional information can be from a third party source with a DOM not related to the DOM webpage the user is interacting.
Claim 48:
Yavilevich discloses:
wherein the document object model is a serialized data (see column 7 lines 5 – column 8 line 8). Yavilevich teaches events are tracked as they happen in series.
Claim 49:
Yavilevich discloses:
wherein the document object model is in compressed format (see column 7 lines 5 – column 8 line 8). Yavilevich teaches using a variable length compression and encoding scheme to tracking events related to the DOM elements.
Claim 50:
Yavilevich discloses:
wherein the user’s movements comprising one or more of actions of a pointing device, scrolling, touch events, orientation of a device, zoom features, entry of text, selection of menus, buttons, checkboxes, passwords, form completion data, input to query boxes, initial value of text fields, pixel coordinates and navigation between webpages (see column 7 lines 47 – 51). Yavilevich teaches scrolling, selecting, data entry, etc.
Claims 51-54, 56:
Although claims 51-54, 56 are non-transitory computer-readable medium claims, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as claim 47-50, 55, respectively.
Claim 55:
Yavilevich discloses:
wherein the additional feature information is received after receiving the recorded user interaction data (see column 15 lines 14-23). Yavilevich teaches additional information can be received and retrieved after the identified recorded user interaction data.
Claim 67:
Yavilevich, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer fail to expressly disclose rewriting HTML image calls.
Henry disclose:
wherein rewriting one or more of the identify dynamic elements of the HTML document form the received user interaction data comprises rewriting an image URL of an image in the HTML document to point to a correct location of the image (see column 15 lines 3-11). Henry teaches modify the URL references in the pages presented by the collection start record such that all HTML page content (including embedded images and/or content) is served by the replay server, avoiding the need to re-access any HTML page content from original data sources.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method disclosed by Yavilevich to include rewriting the HTML for image elements for the purpose of efficiently replaying user interaction data and having images accessible during replay, as recited by Henry.
Claim 70:
Yavilevich, Henry, and Zambonini fail to expressly disclose a serialized text string.
Edmonds discloses:
a serialized text string at fixed time intervals, the serialized text string (see Section 7.2). Edmonds teaches sending the event data as serialized text.
wherein processing the
user interaction data to remove data relating to redundant or similar events in the user interaction data comprises throttling location data associated with the user's cursor to a selected data rate. (see Table 1) Edmonds teaches a capability of removing the event from the log/serialized text string based on if the underlying element is different than the last move. If the locations of the user’s mouse are the same or similar, then the redundant location will be removed.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method disclosed by Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini and Edmonds to include storing interaction/event data as serialized text for the purpose of efficiently storing event data for easy transport, as recited by Edmonds.
Claim 34 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer, in further view of Colton et al., United States Patent No. 7958232 (hereinafter “Colton”).
Claim 34:
Yavilevich discloses:
AJAX requests (see column 14 line 17-30). Yavilevich teaches AJAX.
Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer fail to expressly disclose rewriting AJAX requests to use custom AJAX class requests.
Colton discloses:
rewriting AJAX requests to use custom AJAX class requests rather than native browser HTTP requests (see column 13 lines 17-30). Colton teaches automatically stripping out the bodies of the AJAX requests functions and replaces the bodies with new custom AJAX class functions that know how to invoke the original function on the server using AJAX calls; and
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method disclosed by Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer to include rewriting AJAX requests to custom AJAX class functions for the purpose of effectively running the functions straight from the browser, as recited by Colton.
Claim 26, 35 and 57 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer, in view of Weiss et al., United States Patent Publication 2008/0208579 (hereinafter “Weiss”).
Claim 26:
Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer fail to expressly disclose masking personal information.
Weiss discloses:
further comprises masking personally identifiable information on the document (see paragraph [0061]). Weiss teaches masking personal information in the document during a replay of the interactions.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method disclosed by Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer to include masking information in HTML documents for the purpose of hiding personal information during replay, as taught by Weiss.
Claim 35:
Although claim 35 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as claim 26.
Claim 57:
Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer fail to expressly disclose specifying elements to be masked.
Edmonds discloses:
a serialized text string (see Section 7.2). Edmonds teaches sending the event data as serialized text.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method disclosed by Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer to include storing interaction/event data as serialized text for the purpose of efficiently storing event data for easy transport, as recited by Edmonds.
Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer fail to expressly disclose masking personal information.
Weiss discloses:
wherein the text string includes markers indicating elements within the text string for masking (see paragraph [0072]). Weiss teaches specifying elements of the text string to be masked.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method disclosed by Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer to include indicating elements to be masked for the purpose of hiding personal information during replay of session, as taught by Weiss.
Claims 27 and 36 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds, Atterer and Weiss, in view of Ranganathan, in further view of Judson et al., United States Patent 6457025.
Claim 27:
Weiss discloses:
masking the personally identifiable information (see paragraph [0061]). Weiss teaches masking personal information in the document during a replay of a monitoring session.
Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds, Atterer and Weiss fail to expressly disclose masking personal information with HTML tags.
Judson discloses:
wherein masking the information further comprises using an algorithm for:
inserting HTML comment tags in the HTML document for marking the information; recognizing the inserted HTML comment tags; and masking the information using a regular expression (see column 5 lines 46-55). Judson teaches recognizing the HTML tags and masking information in the HTML document associated with the HTML comment tags.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method disclosed by Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds, Atterer and Weiss to include masking information in HTML documents using tags for the purpose of efficiently masking information directly in the HTML code, as taught by Judson.
Claim 36:
Although claim 36 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as claim 36.
Claims 58, 59, 60, 62-64 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer, in view of Judson et al., United States Patent 6457025.
Claim 58:
Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer fail to expressly disclose using markers as comments tags to mask the private information.
Judson discloses:
wherein the markers are COMMENT tags (see column 5 lines 46-55). Judson teaches recognizing the HTML tags and masking information in the HTML document associated with the HTML comment tags.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method disclosed by Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer to include masking information in HTML documents using tags for the purpose of efficiently masking information directly in the HTML code, as taught by Judson.
Claim 59:
Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer fail to expressly disclose using markers as comments tags to mask the private information.
Judson discloses:
wherein the masking uses a regular expression to mask text between the markers (see column 5 lines 46-55). Judson teaches recognizing the HTML tags and using regular expression for masking information in the HTML document associated with the HTML comment tags.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method disclosed by Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer to include masking information in HTML documents using tags for the purpose of efficiently masking information directly in the HTML code, as taught by Judson.
Claim 60:
Weiss discloses:
wherein the regular expression is a special pattern allows for matching recognized strings of text, words, or patterns of characters (see paragraph [0065]). Weiss teaches recognizing strings of text of names, addresses, credit card numbers.
Claims 62-64:
Although claims 62-64 are non-transitory computer-readable medium claim, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as claims 58-60.
Claim 70 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer, in further view of Raymer et al., United States Patent Publication 20090161850 (hereinafter “Raymer”).
Claim 70:
Edmonds discloses:
processing the user interaction data to remove data relating to redundant or similar events in the user interaction data (see Table 1.) Edmonds teaches a capability of removing the event from the log/serialized text string based on if the underlying element is different than the last move. If same element is the same and state change is the same, then the event data will be redundant and not logged.
Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer fail to teach identifying similar events based on run length encoding.
Raymer discloses:
using run length encoding to identify similar events in the user interaction data (see paragraph [0023]-[0024] and [0032]). Raymer teaches using run length encoder to identify events that are similar, normal or abnormal.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method disclosed by Yavilevich, Henry, Zambonini, Edmonds and Atterer to include using a run length encoder to identify event characteristic for the purpose of efficiently storing event data and avoid storing large amounts of event data (see paragraph [0003]), as taught by Raymer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
103 Claim Rejections
Applicant argues However, Henry does not teach masking (or removing) modifications written to the HTML document by one or more of the identified
dynamic elements. Applicant respectfully submits that Henry only teaches removing the
identified dynamic elements (i.e., the JavaScript or VBscript), but it does not also teach
removing or masking the modifications to the HTML document that were made by the dynamic elements. There is no teaching of masking modifications made by dynamic elements in Henry, only removing the dynamic elements themselves.
The Examiner disagrees.
Henry teaches the replay server replacing URLs, content and redirecting links and data back to the replay server for resolution when modifications are written by the dynamic elements (see column 6 lines 59- column line 8 and column 15 lines 12-21). Henry recites “the replay server also removes any embedded JavaScript, VBScript or other embedded dynamic logic from pages presented for replay to avoid any uncontrollable browser behavior during replay”. Thus, the dynamic logic with dynamic elements are masked or removed. Henry teaches this argued limitation.
Applicant argues Second, with respect to the independent claims, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references fail to teach or suggest "processing the user interaction data to remove data relating to redundant or similar events in the user interaction data." Applicant has reviewed the cited references and can find no teaching or suggestion of such a feature. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of independent claims 18 and 28, as well as all claims dependent thereon.
The Examiner disagrees.
Edmonds teaches processing interactions data to only keep the new mouse events and not the repeated mouse events. The Examiner suggests further defining this step to clarify the removal of redundant information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIONNA M BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-7259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571)272-4124. 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.
/TIONNA M BURKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2178 3/18/26