DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/06/2026 has been entered.
The following action is in response to the amendment and remarks of 02/06/2026.
By the amendment of 02/06/2026, 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
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Applicant states (Remarks 02/06/2026 page 12) that claims 1-16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), however no 35 U.S.C. 102(b) rejections were made in the recent Action (Final Rejection 10/06/2025).
Regarding the double patenting rejection, Applicant has requested the double patenting rejections be held in abeyance until allowance of the present claims (Remarks 02/06/2026 page 6). The Examiner notes the double patenting rejections of the claims have been updated to reflect the amendment below.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-16 over PARKER in view of BOVE (Final Rejection 10/06/2025), Applicant argues (Remarks 02/06/2026 pages 6-12) that: the prior arts of PARKER and BOVE fail or teach or suggest the added feature of “the determined changes to the DOM” being provided to the second web application (Remarks 02/06/2026 pages 6-7), that the prior art of BOVE fails to teach or suggest the limitation of wherein the capturing is transparent to the website visitor by determining changes to a document object model (DOM) (Remarks 02/06/2026 pages 7-8), that PARKER teaches away from any combination of co-browsing such as included in BOVE (Remarks 02/06/2026 pages 9-11), and that PARKER fails to teach or suggest using a second web application interface as set forth or wherein the capturing is transparent to the website visitor (Remarks 02/06/2026 page 12). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with each argument as presented below.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that BOVE fails to teach or suggest the limitation of wherein the capturing is transparent to the website visitor by determining changes to a document object model (DOM) (Remarks 02/06/2026 page 7-8), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Particularly, Applicant states that BOVE fails to provide any teaching related to a document object model (DOM). The Examiner notes that a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the document object model (specification p.51-53: “The webpage data 118 may be data for a webpage such as a document object model (DOM®).” .. “The webpage data update 122 may represent the difference between webpage data 118 before an event and after the event. In some embodiments, the webpage data update 122 is the difference between the current DOM and a previous DOM. The previous DOM may have been updated to the current DOM based on an event (not illustrated).” .. “The webpage data update 122 may include Javascript® or another script from another language that was executed on the webpage data 118 as a result of the event.”) that the document object model represents data for a webpage; changes in document object model indicate detecting a change between a current and previous webpage data. In the 35 USC 103 rejection (Final Rejection 10/06/2025), BOVE is relied on for this teaching (col 8 lines 45-65, col 9 lines 1-27). BOVE discloses detecting event changes of web pages using embedded software code. In BOVE, the webpage data are loaded into browsers, via HTTP, and embedded software code, including Javascript, is used to detect changes to the web page data (BOVE col 8 lines 45-56). Contrary to Applicant’s remarks that BOVE fails to disclose any document object model, BOVE clearly discloses loading a HTML document into a browser to generate a webpage (col 8 lines 45-56). This teaches on the cited Document Object Model. BOVE later provides examples of web page objects of this DOM (col 12 lines 19-30: PageData identifying an object, Tag-identified objects such as text boxes, drop-down lists, etc.). The argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that neither PARKER nor BOVE teach or suggest the added feature of where the determined changes to the DOM are transmitted to a second web application (Remarks 02/06/2026 pages 6-7), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, BOVE teaches detecting changes in the DOM. These changes are provided via synchronization in BOVE to the plural web applications (col 10 lines 34-50). The argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that PARKER teaches away from the combination with BOVE (Remarks 02/06/2026 pages 9-11), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). As stated in the 35 USC 103 rejection (Final Rejection 10/06/2025), motivation is provided for combining the cooperative webpage interaction methods of BOVE with the cooperative co-browsing session between an operator and visitor of PARKER by BOVE (BOVE col 6 lines 8-34). Particularly, BOVE discloses that the cooperative webpage interaction provides additional aid to a visitor of a website by a service representative, which is a direct improvement to the more limited aid provided in PARKER by an operator to a visitor of the website. Further, BOVE does disclose direct improvements to a chat interface (BOVE col 13 lines 24-33). The argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that PARKER fails to teach or suggest the capturing is transparent to the website visitor (Remarks 02/06/2026 page 12), the Examiner notes that PARKER is not relied on to teach that the capturing being transparent to the website visitor (Non-Final Rejection 03/12/2025 ¶30-31). This feature is taught by BOVE by disclosing capturing UI events transparently to the website customer by determining changes to the document object model (BOVE col 8 lines 45-65, col 9 lines 1-27) and combines reasonably with PARKER as presented in the 35 USC 103 rejections below.
No additional arguments are presented regarding claim 9, which recite limitations similar to claim 1, and is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth regarding claim 1.
No additional arguments are presented regarding claims 2-8 and 10-16, which depend from claims 1 and 9, and are each rejected for at least the reasons set forth regarding claims 1 and 9.
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. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of claims 1-16 are taught by each of claims 1-16 of ‘954 respectively as follows.
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.
Regarding claims 2 and 10,
Instant claim 2 (instant claim 10 recites similar limitations)
Claim 2 of ‘954
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
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
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
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
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
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
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, previously presented) in view of BOVE (US 8,849,914, previously 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 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.
BOVE discloses methods for synchronized co-browsing by users (BOVE col 1 lines 50-62). In particular, BOVE discloses capturing UI events, transparently to a website customer, by determining changes to the document object model (BOVE col 8 lines 45-65, col 9 lines 1-27) and BOVE discloses broadly adapting website data updates from a first interface to a second interface by providing the changes in the document object model (BOVE col 10 lines 34-50: changes in a first interface, i.e. customer/visitor, updates website data to effect similar change in the second interface, i.e. operator/CSR synchronicity) configuring an operator and visitor of a website webpage to co-browse and each interact with the website webpage cooperatively and synchronously (BOVE col 17 lines 63-67, col 18 lines 55-67). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of PARKER and BOVE before them at the time of the instant invention to combine the co-browsing cooperative webpage interaction of an webpage operator and webpage visitor using transparently captured UI events through providing determined changes to a DOM and adapted website data updates for each interface of the operator and visitor, as taught by BOVE, 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 provide aid to a visitor of a website by a service representative through synchronized witness/shadow browsing using well known browser technologies, as suggested by BOVE (BOVE col 6 lines 8-34, col 8 lines 47-49).
Regarding claim 2, PARKER and BOVE 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 BOVE 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 BOVE 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 BOVE 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 BOVE 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 BOVE 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 BOVE 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.
Lowet, Dietwig, and Daniel Goergen. "Co-browsing dynamic web pages." Proceedings of the 18th international conference on World wide web. 2009.
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