Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“based profile information” should be corrected to “based on profile information”
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“… accessed from a second client device” should be corrected to “… accessed from a second client device.”. A period should be added.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the limitations “identifying a current use state of the plurality of use states,” and “determining, based on the state information and the current use state, an activity to perform via the software application or a further software application” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “obtaining state information characterizing a software application, wherein the state information indicates a plurality of use states of the software application, and providing a message including the activity” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data, and outputting data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above in prong 2, the limitations “obtaining state information characterizing a software application, wherein the state information indicates a plurality of use states of the software application,” and providing a message including the activity” are mere gathering data, and outputting data which the courts have identified as well-understood, routine conventional activity. See for example Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362, MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, mere data gathering and outputting data do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons explained for claims 1 and 16, and claim 20 recites additional elements “one or more processors,” and “memory, containing program instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations.” These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements recited in claim 20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under prong 2, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B.,
Claim 2 merely recites intended use of the claimed invention which does not render the claim eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 3, 7, 8, 9 and 19, each of the “determining” recited in these claims, as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, the “determining” recites additional mental process, and the additional element of “receiving” is mere data gathering which is neither a practical application, nor significantly more for the reasons explained above in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 5, 6, 10-13 and 18 merely describes the information obtained in claim 1 which are not indicative of either a practical application, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as explained in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 14 merely describes the information being provided in claim 1, thus, amounts to displaying data which is neither a practical application, nor amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception, as explained in the rejection of claim 1.
Regrading claim 15, the limitation “applying rule definitions to the event data to determine the activity to perform” recites a mental process, and “obtaining event data” is merely data gathering, which are not indicative of either a practical application, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as explained in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dotan-Cohen (US 11429883 B2).
As per claim 1:
Dotan-Cohen teaches a method comprising:
Obtaining state information characterizing (Data corresponding to user activity may be gathered over time using sensors on one or more user devices associated with a user – [col 3; lines 27-29]; Please note that user activity corresponds to the Applicant’s “state information”) a software application (the user activity may be related to a user’s application (or app) related activity, such as usage – [col 3; lines 66-67]; a user’s application (or app) related activity/usage corresponds to the Applicant’s “software application”) wherein the state information indicates a plurality of use states of the software application (application usage, which may include usage duration, launches, files accessed via the application or in conjunction with the application usage, or content associated with the application – [col 4; lines 1 - 4]; The plurality of usage cases corresponds to the Applicant’s “plurality of use states of the software application”)
Identifying a current use state of the plurality of use states (Based on … and in some cases current sensor data regarding user activity – [col 5; lines 18-20]; current sensor data corresponds to Applicant’s “current use state”);
Determining, based on the state information and the current use state, an activity to perform via the software application or a further software application (From the activity logs or user activity data, historical user activity information may be determined and provided to an inference engine. Based on an analysis of historical user activity, and in some cases current sensor data regarding user activity, a set of one or more likely user activity patterns may be determined – [col 5; lines 16 - 22]; activity logs or user activity data corresponds to Applicant’s “state information”. Current sensor data corresponds to Applicant’s “current use state”. A set of one or more likely activity patterns corresponds to Applicant’s “activity to perform”), and providing a message including the activity (For example, some embodiments may provide timely, relevant delivery or presentation of content … incorporation of the user's routine into recommendations and notifications – [col 6; lines 55-60]; presentation of content corresponds to Applicant’s “message including the activity”)
As per claim 2:
Dotan-Cohen teaches the method of claim 1. Dotan-Cohen further teaches:
wherein a user of the software application is in the current use state of the software application (Based on … and in some cases current sensor data regarding user activity – [col 5; lines 18-20]; current sensor data corresponds to Applicant’s “current use state”);
As per claim 3:
Dotan-Cohen teaches the method of claim 2. Dotan-Cohen further teaches:
wherein determining the activity to perform is also based profile information related to the user (Example user profile 240 includes information associated with a particular user such as user activity information 242, information about user accounts and devices 244, user preferences 246, inferred user routines 248, and personalized content 249. The information stored in user profile 240 may be available to the activity pattern inference engine 260 or other components of example system 200. – [col 28-29; lines 63-4]; The activity pattern inference engine is responsible for generating an activity recommendation for the user, therefore the activity inference engine utilizing user profile information corresponds to the Applicant’s “determining the activity to perform is also based [on] profile information related to the user”)
As per claim 4:
Dotan-Cohen teaches the method of claim 1. Dotan-Cohen further teaches:
wherein identifying the current use state of the plurality of use states comprises: receiving a feed of events from an event log associated with the software application; and determining the current use state based on at least some of the events (As shown in example system 200, user activity monitor 280 comprises a user activity detector 282 … User activity detector 282, in general, is responsible for determining (or identifying) a user action or activity event has occurred. Embodiments of activity detector 282 may be used for determining current user activity or one or more historical user actions. – [col 11-12 lines 62-23]; At a high level, activity pattern inference engine 260 may receive user activity-related information, which may be uploaded from user activity logs from client-side applications or services associated with user activity monitor 280 – [col 15; lines 35-39]; The user activity monitor, which encompasses the user activity monitor, the actions of obtaining activity logs and determining current activity, which correspond to the Applicant’s “receiving a feed of events from an event log associated with the software application; and determining the current use state based on at least some of the events”)
As per claim 5:
Dotan-Cohen teaches the method of claim 1. Dotan-Cohen further teaches:
wherein the plurality of use states of the software application were generated based on an event log of previous events generated by the software application (From the activity logs or user activity data, historical user activity information may be determined and provided to an inference engine. Based on an analysis of historical user activity, and in some cases current sensor data regarding user activity, a set of one or more likely user activity patterns may be determined. – [col 5; lines 16-21]; The activity logs correspond to the Applicant’s “event log” and a set of one or more likely user activity patterns corresponds to the Applicant’s “plurality of use states” that were generated based on the event log).
As per claim 6:
Dotan-Cohen teaches the method of claim 1. Dotan-Cohen further teaches:
wherein the plurality of use states of the software application are part of an empirical workflow, wherein the use states and transitions therebetween characterize patterns of previous usage of the software application (For example, patterns may be determined based on similar instances of observation of user activity or associated contextual information, which may be referred to as “in-common features” of user activity-related information. The inferred activity pattern information may be provided to an activity pattern consumer 270 and/or used to generate a pattern-based prediction regarding likely future user action(s). In some embodiments, a corresponding confidence is also determined for the patterns (or predictions based on the patterns), as described herein. Further, the activity pattern (or prediction of future action based on a pattern) may comprise a single (future-occurring) user activity likely to occur, a sequence of future user actions– [col 15; lines 35-39]; the activity patterns being determined based on historical data corresponds to the Applicant’s “wherein the use states and transitions therebetween characterize patterns of previous usage of the software application”)
As per claim 7:
Dotan-Cohen teaches the method of claim 1. Dotan-Cohen further teaches:
wherein determining the activity to perform comprises determining that at least a predefined amount of time has passed since the current use state was entered (In some embodiments, once an activity pattern is determined, it can be used to determine that a probable future activity event will occur at a future time that is a threshold time from a present time … by analyzing the exercise pattern and/or current or recent information about user activity. – [col 34; lines 22-28]; A probable future activity corresponds to Applicant’s “activity to perform”. A threshold from a present time corresponds to Applicant’s “predefined amount of time”. Current or recent information about user activity corresponds to Applicant’s “current use state”).
As per claim 8:
Dotan-Cohen teaches the method of claim 1. Dotan-Cohen further teaches:
wherein determining the activity to perform is also based on use states of the plurality of use states that were occupied during a predefined lookback period of time (the probable future activity is determined by looking at a periodic or behavior context – [col 35; lines 20-28]; The probable future activity corresponds to Applicant’s “activity to perform”. Looking at a periodic or behavior context corresponds to Applicant’s “use states of the plurality of use states that were occupied during a predefined lookback period”).
As per claim 10:
Dotan-Cohen teaches the method of claim 1. Dotan-Cohen further teaches:
wherein an aspect of the software application is in an incomplete condition, and wherein the activity is to continue using the software application from the incomplete condition (For example, a user activity event comprising an email sent to someone who works with the user may be characterized as a work-related activity. Thus, where the user emails some person she works with every Sunday night, but not necessarily the same person, a pattern may be determined (using activity pattern determiner 266) that the user performs work-related activities every Sunday night. Accordingly, it may be appropriate to surface a notification, such as a reminder, relating to the user's work to the user on Sunday night – [col 17; lines 25-34]; In this example, a user having not sent an email on a Sunday night corresponds to the Applicant’s “incomplete condition” and recommending performing the work-related activity corresponds to the Applicant’s “continue using the software application from the incomplete condition”)
As per claim 11:
Dotan-Cohen teaches the method of claim 1. Dotan-Cohen further teaches:
wherein the current use state indicates that use of the software application has been unable to resolve a condition and wherein the activity is to use the further software application to resolve the condition (For example, a user activity event comprising an email sent to someone who works with the user may be characterized as a work-related activity. Thus, where the user emails some person she works with every Sunday night, but not necessarily the same person, a pattern may be determined (using activity pattern determiner 266) that the user performs work-related activities every Sunday night. Accordingly, it may be appropriate to surface a notification, such as a reminder, relating to the user's work to the user on Sunday night – [col 17; lines 25-34]; In this example, a user having not sent an email on a Sunday night corresponds to the Applicant’s unresolved condition and recommending performing the work-related activity corresponds to the Applicant’s “using the further software application to resolve the condition”)
As per claim 12:
Dotan-Cohen teaches the method of claim 1. Dotan-Cohen further teaches:
wherein the state information includes one or more criteria under which the message is to be provided (For example, in an embodiment, the enhanced user experience comprises one of a recommendation, notification, request, or suggestion related to the probable future activity. In one embodiment, it comprises automatically carrying out actions related to the probable future activity at a time or location consistent with the inferred activity pattern – [col 36; lines 11-18]; carrying out the actions (notifications, suggestions, etc.) related to the probable future activity at a time or location … corresponds to the Applicant’s “criteria under which the message is to be provided”) and wherein determining the activity to perform comprises determining that the one or more criteria are met (In some embodiments, the probable future activity may comprise a context, which may be defined by a location, time, user behavior, or other condition, and may be determined based at least in part on sensor data – [col 35; lines 15-19]; The context of the probable future activity and sensor data correspond to the Applicant’s “one or more criteria”).
As per claim 13:
Dotan-Cohen teaches the method of claim 1. Dotan-Cohen further teaches:
wherein the state information includes a channel through which the message is to be provided, and wherein providing the message comprises providing the message via the channel (In some embodiments, presentation component 220 generates user interface features associated with the personalized content. Such features can include interface elements (such as graphics buttons, sliders, menus, audio prompts, alerts, alarms, vibrations, pop-up windows, notification-bar or status-bar items, in-app notifications, or other similar features for interfacing with a user), queries, and prompts. – [col 28; lines 33 - 39]; presentation component corresponds to Applicant’s “channel through which the message is to be provided”).
As per claim 14:
Dotan-Cohen teaches the method of claim 1. Dotan-Cohen further teaches:
wherein providing the message comprises providing the message as a notification, via a layout change to a user interface, via an event (In some embodiments, presentation component 220 generates user interface features associated with the personalized content. Such features can include interface elements (such as graphics buttons, sliders, menus, audio prompts, alerts, alarms, vibrations, pop-up windows, notification-bar or status-bar items, in-app notifications, or other similar features for interfacing with a user), queries, and prompts. – [col 28; lines 33 - 39]; The enumerated interface elements correspond to the Applicant’s “providing the message as a notification, via a layout change to a user interface, via an event”), or by invoking an application or workflow (For example, where the user typically browses her bank account near the beginning of the month and copies financial information from the bank website into a spreadsheet, an embodiment of step 530 may automatically perform the operations of launching a browser, navigating to the bank website, and loading the spreadsheet file in a spreadsheet application – [col 36; lines 18-24]; This example demonstrates the Applicant’s “invoking an application or workflow”)
As per claim 15:
Dotan-Cohen teaches the method of claim 1. Dotan-Cohen further teaches:
wherein identifying the current use state of the plurality of use states comprises obtaining, event data from an event log or database table (User activity monitor 280 may determine current or near-real-time user activity information – [col 10; lines 66 - 67]; The user activity monitor corresponds to the Applicant’s “event log or database table”) and wherein determining the activity to perform comprises applying rule definitions to the event data to determine the activity to perform (From the activity logs or user activity data, historical user activity information may be determined and provided to an inference engine. Based on an analysis of historical user activity, and in some cases current sensor data regarding user activity, a set of one or more likely user activity patterns may be determined. – [col 5; lines 16 – 21]; analysis of historical user activity and current sensor data corresponds to the Applicant’s “applying rule definitions”)
As per claim 16:
Dotan-Cohen teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising (Computing device 600 typically includes a variety of computer-readable media … Computer storage media does not comprise signals per se.” – [col 37; lines 25-44]):
Obtaining state information characterizing (Data corresponding to user activity may be gathered over time using sensors on one or more user devices associated with a user – [col 3; lines 27-29]; Please note that user activity corresponds to the Applicant’s “state information”) a software application (the user activity may be related to a user’s application (or app) related activity, such as usage – [col 3; lines 66-67]; a user’s application (or app) related activity/usage corresponds to the Applicant’s “software application”) wherein the state information indicates a plurality of use states of the software application (application usage, which may include usage duration, launches, files accessed via the application or in conjunction with the application usage, or content associated with the application – [col 4; lines 1 - 4]; The plurality of usage cases corresponds to the Applicant’s “plurality of use states of the software application”)
Identifying a current use state of the plurality of use states (Based on … and in some cases current sensor data regarding user activity – [col 5; lines 18-20]; current sensor data corresponds to Applicant’s “current use state”);
Determining, based on the state information and the current use state, an activity to perform via the software application or a further software application (From the activity logs or user activity data, historical user activity information may be determined and provided to an inference engine. Based on an analysis of historical user activity, and in some cases current sensor data regarding user activity, a set of one or more likely user activity patterns may be determined – [col 5; lines 16 - 22]; activity logs or user activity data corresponds to Applicant’s “state information”. Current sensor data corresponds to Applicant’s “current use state”. A set of one or more likely activity patterns corresponds to Applicant’s “activity to perform”), and providing a message including the activity (For example, some embodiments may provide timely, relevant delivery or presentation of content … incorporation of the user's routine into recommendations and notifications – [col 6; lines 55-60]; presentation of content corresponds to Applicant’s “message including the activity”)
As per claim 17:
Dotan-Cohen teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 16. Dotan-Cohen further teaches:
wherein identifying the current use state of the plurality of use states comprises: receiving a feed of events from an event log associated with the software application; and determining the current use state based on at least some of the events (As shown in example system 200, user activity monitor 280 comprises a user activity detector 282 … User activity detector 282, in general, is responsible for determining (or identifying) a user action or activity event has occurred. Embodiments of activity detector 282 may be used for determining current user activity or one or more historical user actions. – [col 11-12 lines 62-23]; At a high level, activity pattern inference engine 260 may receive user activity-related information, which may be uploaded from user activity logs from client-side applications or services associated with user activity monitor 280 – [col 15; lines 35-39]; The user activity monitor, which encompasses the user activity monitor, the actions of obtaining activity logs and determining current activity, which correspond to the Applicant’s “receiving a feed of events from an event log associated with the software application; and determining the current use state based on at least some of the events”)
As per claim 18:
Dotan-Cohen teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 16. Dotan-Cohen further teaches:
wherein the plurality of use states of the software application are part of an empirical workflow, wherein the use states and transitions therebetween characterize patterns of previous usage of the software application (For example, patterns may be determined based on similar instances of observation of user activity or associated contextual information, which may be referred to as “in-common features” of user activity-related information. The inferred activity pattern information may be provided to an activity pattern consumer 270 and/or used to generate a pattern-based prediction regarding likely future user action(s). In some embodiments, a corresponding confidence is also determined for the patterns (or predictions based on the patterns), as described herein. Further, the activity pattern (or prediction of future action based on a pattern) may comprise a single (future-occurring) user activity likely to occur, a sequence of future user actions– [col 15; lines 35-39]; the activity patterns being determined based on historical data corresponds to the Applicant’s “wherein the use states and transitions therebetween characterize patterns of previous usage of the software application”)
As per claim 20:
Dotan-Cohen teaches a system comprising:
Obtaining state information characterizing (Data corresponding to user activity may be gathered over time using sensors on one or more user devices associated with a user – [col 3; lines 27-29]; Please note that user activity corresponds to the Applicant’s “state information”) a software application (the user activity may be related to a user’s application (or app) related activity, such as usage – [col 3; lines 66-67]; a user’s application (or app) related activity/usage corresponds to the Applicant’s “software application”) wherein the state information indicates a plurality of use states of the software application (application usage, which may include usage duration, launches, files accessed via the application or in conjunction with the application usage, or content associated with the application – [col 4; lines 1 - 4]; The plurality of usage cases corresponds to the Applicant’s “plurality of use states of the software application”)
Identifying a current use state of the plurality of use states (Based on … and in some cases current sensor data regarding user activity – [col 5; lines 18-20]; current sensor data corresponds to Applicant’s “current use state”);
Determining, based on the state information and the current use state, an activity to perform via the software application or a further software application (From the activity logs or user activity data, historical user activity information may be determined and provided to an inference engine. Based on an analysis of historical user activity, and in some cases current sensor data regarding user activity, a set of one or more likely user activity patterns may be determined – [col 5; lines 16 - 22]; activity logs or user activity data corresponds to Applicant’s “state information”. Current sensor data corresponds to Applicant’s “current use state”. A set of one or more likely activity patterns corresponds to Applicant’s “activity to perform”), and providing a message including the activity (For example, some embodiments may provide timely, relevant delivery or presentation of content … incorporation of the user's routine into recommendations and notifications – [col 6; lines 55-60]; presentation of content corresponds to Applicant’s “message including the activity”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotan-Cohen (US 11429883 B2) in view of Raju (US 9571536 B2).
As per claim 9:
Dotan-Cohen teaches a method as applied above in claim 1.
Dotan-Cohen does not teach:
wherein determining the activity to perform comprises: determining that a first client device was used to bring the software application into the current use state; and determining that the software application has been accessed from a second client device.
However, Raju, in the same field of software management, teaches determining that a first client device was used to bring the software application into the current use state (At block 702, an activity feed engine engages a task on a source device, such as device 102, 200, 408, 506, and/or 606. – [col 16; lines 53-61]; A source device corresponds to Applicant’s “first client device” and engages a task corresponds to Applicant’s “bring the software application into the current use state); and determining that the software application has been accessed from a second client device (In block 712, the activity feed engine launches an application on the target device, respective to the task selection in block 710. In some examples, the activity feed engine can launch the same application in which the task was last presented and/or modified on the source device. – [col 17; lines 27 - 31]; launching the same application on a target device corresponds to the Applicant’s “the software application” being accessed from a “second client device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Raju’s teaching of determining that a first client device was used to bring the software application into the current use state, and determining that the software application has been accessed from a second client device with the activity prediction system of Dotan-Cohen. This implementation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time because it would enable activity data to be tracked accurately when users engage with one activity over multiple devices, which further enhances the user experience.
As per claim 19:
Dotan-Cohen teaches a method as applied above in claim 16.
Dotan-Cohen does not teach:
wherein determining the activity to perform comprises: determining that a first client device was used to bring the software application into the current use state; and determining that the software application has been accessed from a second client device.
However, Raju, in the same field of software management, teaches determining that a first client device was used to bring the software application into the current use state (At block 702, an activity feed engine engages a task on a source device, such as device 102, 200, 408, 506, and/or 606. – [col 16; lines 53-61]; A source device corresponds to Applicant’s “first client device” and engages a task corresponds to Applicant’s “bring the software application into the current use state); and determining that the software application has been accessed from a second client device (In block 712, the activity feed engine launches an application on the target device, respective to the task selection in block 710. In some examples, the activity feed engine can launch the same application in which the task was last presented and/or modified on the source device. – [col 17; lines 27 - 31]; launching the same application on a target device corresponds to the Applicant’s “the software application” being accessed from a “second client device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Raju’s teaching of determining that a first client device was used to bring the software application into the current use state, and determining that the software application has been accessed from a second client device with the activity prediction system of Dotan-Cohen. This implementation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time because it would enable activity data to be tracked accurately when users engage with one activity over multiple devices, which further enhances the user experience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Hemphill et al. (US 6167448 A) discusses an event notification system that uses management agents to detect events and provide event notification messages.
Wylie et al. (US 10673958 B1) discusses maintaining user sessions across multiple devices and/or platforms.
Casati et al. (US 11734150 B1) discusses a system that monitors user event activity on a software application/s and analyzes common paths users take when navigating them.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH MAXEN LANE whose telephone number is (571)272-8027. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7:30 A.M. - 5 P.M..
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, April Y. Blair can be reached at (571) 270-1014. 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.
/JOSEPH MAXEN LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196