DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The following action is in response to the amendment and remarks of 07/27/2026.
By the amendment of 07/27/2026, claims 1 and 9 have been amended. No claims were canceled or made new.
Claims 1-16 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the double patenting rejection, the amendment to claims 1 and 9 have overcome the double patenting rejections of claims 1-16 over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,739,954. However, new grounds of rejection have been presented below.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, the Examiner agrees that PARKER in view of BOVE fail to disclose the amended limitation wherein adapting the website data update further comprises converting the website data update from a first browser format to a second browser format. Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-16 over PARKER in view of BOVE have been withdrawn. However, prior art of CLEASBY (US 7,299,403) was found to combine with PARKER to meet the deficiencies of PARKER.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,739,954 in view of CLEASBY, US 7,299,403 B1.
Regarding claims 1 and 9,
Instant claim 1 (Instant claim 9 recites similar limitations)
Claim 1 of ‘954
A computer based method for observing and engaging with a website visitor to a website, the method comprising:
A computer based method for observing and engaging with a website visitor, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor of a web-based server, a list of active visitors to a web application over a communications interface, wherein the list comprises information about the active visitors stored in a database;
receiving, by a processor of a web-based server, a list of active visitors to a web application over a communications interface, wherein the list comprises information about the active visitors stored in a database;
identifying, by the processor, the website visitor based on the information;
identifying, by the processor, the website visitor based on the information;
capturing, by the processor, one or more user interface (UI) events entered by the website visitor into a first web application interface, wherein the capturing is transparent to the website visitor by determining changes to a document object model (DOM);
capturing, by the processor, one or more user interface (UI) events entered by the website visitor into a first web application interface, wherein the capturing comprises determining changes to a document object model (DOM) of the web application and is transparent to the website visitor;
transmitting, by the processor, the identity of the website visitor, the information, and the one or more UI events to a second web application interface of an operator by providing the determined changes to the DOM, wherein the operator can observe the one or more UI events;
transmitting, by the processor, the identity of the website visitor, the information, and the one or more UI events to a second web application interface of an operator by providing at least the determined changes to the DOM of the web application, wherein the operator can observe the one or more UI events;
adapting a website data update according to the first web application interface of the website visitor to a second web application interface of the operator configuring the operator to co-browse with the website visitor; and
wherein the capturing comprises determining changes to a document object model (DOM) of the web application and is transparent to the website visitor .. by providing at least the determined changes to the DOM of the web application .. and initiating, by the processor, a co-browsing session between the operator and the website visitor
and initiating, by the processor, a co-browsing session between the operator and the website visitor, wherein co-browsing includes the operator and the website visitor browsing cooperatively, the co-browsing configuring the website visitor interaction with the web application through the first web application interface utilizing the website data update and an operator interaction with the web application through the second web application interface in a collaborative manner utilizing the website data update and the one or more UI events, to cooperatively interact with the website.
and initiating, by the processor, a co-browsing session between the operator and the website visitor, such that the website visitor can interact with the web application through the first web application interface and the operator can interact with the web application through the second web application interface in a collaborative manner.
Claim 1 of ‘954 fails to disclose wherein adapting comprises converting the website data update from a first web browser format of the first web application interface to a second web browser format of the second web application interface. CLEASBY discloses methods for providing synchronized co-browsing collaboration sessions (col 2 lines 19-45), an analogous art. In particular, CLEASY discloses a first browser format and second browser format (col 14 lines 13-33: client browsers may be different versions, i.e. first client browser could be Internet Explorer, second client browser could be Netscape Navigator), such that website data updates are converted to from the first format useable by the first browser into a second format useable by the second browser (col 2 lines 14-18: capture process depends on browser format to capture updates in first format, col 16 lines 37-67, col 17 lines 1-8: captured process data of first format is converted to hidden form content object string which is useable by other browsers). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the converting website data updates from a first web browser format of a first web application interface to a second web browser format of a second web application interface, as taught by CLEASBY, with the adapting website data of claim 1 of ‘954. One would have been motivated to make this combination in order to allow users of different versions of web browsers of different manufacturers to collaborate, as suggested by CLEASBY (col 4 lines 44-57, col 13 lines 52-58).
Regarding claims 2 and 10,
Instant claim 2 (instant claim 10 recites similar limitations)
Claim 2 of ‘954 in view of CLEASBY
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the processor, a request to co-browse the web application with the website visitor from the operator over the communications interface.
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the processor, a request to co-browse the web application with the website visitor from the operator over the communications interface.
Regarding claims 3 and 11,
Instant claim 3 (instant claim 11 recites similar limitations)
Claim 3 of ‘954 in view of CLEASBY
The method of claim 2, wherein the request is received after the operator observes the one or more UI events.
The method of claim 2, wherein the request is received after the operator observes the one or more UI events.
Regarding claims 4 and 12,
Instant claim 4 (instant claim 12 recites similar limitations)
Claim 4 of ‘954 in view of CLEASBY
The method of claim 2, further comprising: transmitting, by the processor, the request to co-browse the web application to the website visitor over the communications interface.
The method of claim 2, further comprising: transmitting, by the processor, the request to co-browse the web application to the website visitor over the communications interface.
Regarding claims 5 and 13,
Instant claim 5 (instant claim 13 recites similar limitations)
Claim 5 of ‘954 in view of CLEASBY
The method of claim 1, wherein the information comprises one or more of a name, email, company, phone, location, referral source, and engagement of the active visitors.
The method of claim 1, wherein the information comprises one or more of a name, email, company, phone, location, referral source, and engagement of the active visitors.
Regarding claims 6 and 14,
Instant claim 6 (instant claim 14 recites similar limitations)
Claim 6 of ‘954 in view of CLEASBY
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more UI events comprise one or more events recognized by the web application interface.
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more UI events comprise one or more events recognized by the web application interface.
Regarding claims 7 and 15,
Instant claim 7 (instant claim 15 recites similar limitations)
Claim 7 of ‘954 in view of CLEASBY
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more UI events comprise one or more of a mouse click, mouse movement, a page refresh, and receipt of an event from the web application.
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more UI events comprise one or more of a mouse click, mouse movement, a page refresh, and receipt of an event from the web application.
Regarding claims 8 and 16,
Instant claim 8 (instant claim 16 recites similar limitations)
Claim 8 of ‘954 in view of CLEASBY
The method of claim 1, wherein the information is provided by the website visitor.
The method of claim 1, wherein the information is provided by the website visitor.
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 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 though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over PARKER (US 6,912,563 B1, previously presented) in view of CLEASBY (US 7,299,403 B1, newly presented).
Regarding claim 1, PARKER discloses a computer based method for observing and engaging with a website visitor to a website (PARKER Abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor of a web-based server (PARKER col 3 lines 18-66, col 4 lines 1-56: operating environment through web-based servers), a list of active visitors to a web application over a communications interface (PARKER col 5 lines 4-6: receiving website visitor list at operator application), wherein the list comprises information about the active visitors stored in a database (PARKER col 5 lines 35-59: list of currently connected visitors includes information about the visitors such as page currently being viewed);
identifying, by the processor, the website visitor based on the information (PARKER col 6 lines 8-34: contacting website visitor if information criteria are met);
capturing, by the processor, one or more user interface (UI) events entered by the website visitor into a first web application interface (PARKER col 5 lines 45-64: capturing user interaction events at the user applet, col 6 lines 25-26: applet captures user response events, col 5 lines 52-67: recording changes in page on the applet enabled web browser by the service);
transmitting, by the processor, the identity of the website visitor, the information, and the one or more UI events to a second web application interface of an operator (PARKER col 6 lines 8-34: transmitting user identity, information and events to the operator service), wherein the operator can observe the one or more UI events (PARKER col 6 lines 25-34: operator monitors the conversation for response); and
initiating, by the processor, a co-browsing session between the operator and the website visitor (PARKER col 6 lines 35-50: live operator can take part in dialog with website visitor interacting with a web page e-commerce), wherein co-browsing includes the operator and the website visitor browsing cooperatively (PARKER col 6 lines 35-50, col 7 lines 8-10, col 7 lines 15-44, col 8 lines 34-64: operator application operated by the operator to interact with the web application service and the web browser enabled applet interacted with by the website visitor to interact with the web application service, whereby the interaction is initiated from the website and a URL can be exchanged cooperatively), the co-browsing configuring the website visitor interaction with the web application through the first web application interface and the operator interaction with the web application through the second web application interface in a collaborative manner (PARKER col 6 lines 35-50, col 7 lines 8-10, col 7 lines 15-44, col 8 lines 34-64: examples of website visitor interacting with the web application through first web application and operator interacting with the web application through operator web application collaboratively).
While PARKER discloses capturing the one or more UI events entered by the website visitor into the first application interface and the operator sending a website webpage for interaction to the visitor as above, PARKER fails to disclose wherein the capturing is transparent to the website visitor by determining changes to a document object model (DOM), transmitting based on capturing is by providing the determined changes to the DOM, or adapting a website data update according to the first interface of the visitor to the second interface of the operator by converting the website data update from a first web browser format of the first web application interface to a second web browser format of the second web application interface, thereby configuring the operator to co-browse with the website visitor and wherein the sent website webpage is cooperatively interacted by both the operator and the visitor.
CLEASBY discloses methods for providing synchronized co-browsing collaboration sessions (CLEASBY col 2 lines 19-45), an analogous art. In particular, CLEASBY discloses capturing UI events, transparently to a website user, by determining changes to the document object model (CLEASBY col 14 lines 46-57: hidden form captures browser process objects) using a first browser format and second browser format (CLEASBY col 14 lines 13-33: client browsers may be different versions, i.e. first client browser could be Internet Explorer, second client browser could be Netscape Navigator), such that website data updates are converted to from the first format useable by the first browser into a second format useable by the second browser (CLEASBY col 2 lines 14-18: capture process depends on browser format to capture updates in first format, col 16 lines 37-67, col 17 lines 1-8: captured process data of first format is converted to hidden form content object string which is useable by other browsers), configuring users of a website webpage to co-browse and each interact with the webpage cooperatively and synchronously (CLEASBY col 2 lines 6-29, Fig. 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of PARKER and CLEASBY before them at the time of the instant invention to combine the converting website data updates, comprising transparently captured UI events through providing determined changes to a DOM, from a first web browser format of a first web application interface to a second web browser format of a second web application interface using and adapted website data updates for each interface of the operator and visitor to enable co-browsing and website interaction between users, as taught by CLEASBY, with the cooperative co-browsing session between a website web application operator and a website web application visitor having captured UI events of PARKER. One would have been motivated to make this combination in order to allow users of different versions of web browsers of different manufacturers to collaborate, as suggested by CLEASBY (CLEASBY col 4 lines 44-57, col 13 lines 52-58).
Regarding claim 2, PARKER and CLEASBY disclose the method of claim 1, and PARKER further discloses:
receiving, by the processor, a request to co-browse the web application with the website visitor from the operator over the communications interface (PARKER col 6 lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 3, PARKER and CLEASBY disclose the method of claim 2, and PARKER further discloses wherein the request is received after the operator observes the one or more UI events (PARKER col 6 lines 13-22).
Regarding claim 4, PARKER and CLEASBY disclose the method of claim 2, and PARKER further discloses:
transmitting, by the processor, the request to co-browse the web application to the website visitor over the communications interface (PARKER col 6 lines 22-31). -35- 4737381-1 SAL4-PT002.1
Regarding claim 5, PARKER and CLEASBY disclose the method of claim 1, and PARKER further discloses wherein the information comprises one or more of a name, email, company, phone, location, referral source, and engagement of the active visitors (PARKER Fig. 8, col 8 lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 6, PARKER and CLEASBY disclose the method of claim 1, and PARKER further discloses wherein the one or more UI events comprise one or more events recognized by the web application interface (PARKER col 5 lines 45-64: capturing user interaction events at the user applet, col 6 lines 25-26: applet captures user response events).
Regarding claim 7, PARKER and CLEASBY disclose the method of claim 1, and PARKER further discloses wherein the one or more UI events comprise one or more of a mouse click, mouse movement, a page refresh, and receipt of an event from the web application (PARKER col 5 lines 54-64).
Regarding claim 8, PARKER and CLEASBY disclose the method of claim 1, and PARKER further discloses wherein the information is provided by the website visitor (PARKER col 5 lines 54-64, col 8 lines 1-11).
Regarding claims 9-16, claims 9-16 recite limitations similar to claims 1-7, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amit, Rami et al.
US 20020032730 A1
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CORRELATING DATA SESSIONS
Yue; Chuan et al.
US 20100082747 A1
REAL-TIME COLLABORATIVE BROWSING
Sheretov; Andrei et al.
US 20140129920 A1
ENHANCED DOCUMENT AND EVENT MIRRORING FOR ACCESSING INTERNET CONTENT
England; Paul
US 6144991 A
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING INTERACTIONS BETWEEN USERS IN A BROWSER-BASED TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
Chen S et al.
WO 0219131 A1
COLLABORATION COMPUTER SYSTEM USES WINDOW LOCATORS UNIQUELY TO IDENTIFY THE WEB BROWSER WINDOW IN WHICH AN EVENT OCCURRED, DOCUMENT LOCATORS AND A TRANSFER DATA STRUCTURE FOR ESTABLISHING COLLABORATIVE SESSIONS
Bellucci, Federico, et al. "Automatic reverse engineering of interactive dynamic web applications to support adaptation across platforms." Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 2012.
Henricksen, Karen, and Jadwiga Indulska. "Adapting the web interface: an adaptive web browser." Proceedings Second Australasian User Interface Conference. AUIC 2001. IEEE, 2001.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L TANK whose telephone number is (571)270-1692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9a-6p.
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, Matthew Ell can be reached at 571-270-3264. 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.
/ANDREW L TANK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141
