DETAILED ACTION
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 . This action is responsive to the communications filed 3 November 2025. Claims 1-9,11-21, 23-33, and 35-36 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-9,11-21, 23-33, and 35-36. are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Bras et al. (Hereinafter, Le Bras, 2017/0323026 A1) in view of Skiba et al. (Hereinafter, Skiba, US 2017/0064079 A1), and further in view of Peretz et al. (Hereinafter, Peretz, US 20180046731 A1)
Per claims 1, 13, and 25, Le Bras discloses a computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, a computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, and computing system including a processor and memory configured to perform operations (paragraph [0012], “The present invention may be a system, a method, and/or a computer program product. The computer program product may include a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the present invention.”) comprising:
enabling a browsing session between a distributed actor (e.g., webpage replay client 308 as shown in Fig. 3 ) and a web-browser (e.g., browser 312 as shown in Fig. 3) (paragraph [0079] describes that a webpage is retrieved in response to an input from a user of a browser equipped with a recorder. Paragraph [0020] describes that the system retrieves the webpage and starts a session for the page), wherein the distributed actor is a non-human distributed actor(e.g., webpage replay client 308 as shown in Fig. 3; paragraph [0079] describes that the capturing the page DOM and user interactions happens in response to a user retrieving a webpage via a network using a browser equipped with a recorder ).
performing a replication of the browsing session for a third party, thus generating a replicated browsing session (paragraph [0081] describes that the system captures a base DOM of the webpage with the recorder, and paragraph [0082] describes that the page DOM, DOM differentials and user interactions with a page to a replay server. Paragraph [0071]-[0072] describe that the page DOM and user interaction are stored and later accessed by a replay client to generate a replay of the session. Paragraph [0023] describes that the user requesting replay is a different client from the clients whose interactions were recorded); and
rendering the replicated browsing session for the third party (Paragraph [0072] describes that the high fidelity replay including the page DOM, differentials, and interactions are sent to the replay client for playback).
Le Bras does not expressly disclose:
wherein the browsing session includes a visual display of the non-human distributed actor navigating within and interacting with elements within the web-browser;
wherein performing the replication of the browsing session includes defining one or more permissible inputs for interacting with the replicated browsing session by limiting at least one input performable within the replicated browsing session by the third party relative to a plurality of possible inputs in the browsing session;[[and]]
enabling the third party to interact with the replicated browsing session using the one or more permissible inputs for interacting with the replicated browsing session ; and
modifying a skill associated with the non-human distributed actor based upon, at least in part, third party interaction with the replicated browsing session.
Skiba discloses wherein the browsing session includes a visual display of the non-human distributed actor (e.g., instruction 302 as shown in Figs. 3A-3C; paragraph [0059]; Examiner’s Note: Skiba disclose automated co-browsing instructions that are provided to a co-browsing application interface to mimic the inputs received by a co-browsing application interface and are visually displayed..) navigating within and interacting with elements within the web-browser (Abstract; paragraph [0001], “The present disclosure is generally directed toward systems and methods for inserting machine-learned automated instructions into a human interaction.” ; paragraph [0006]; paragraph [0003]; paragraph [0047], “….In another embodiment, resource 112 is a computer, such as a server, providing the inputs independently of the inputs provided upon a computer resource 112 associated with the human agent. For example, it may appear to the customer that the agent is moving their mouse, typing on their keyboard, etc., although such inputs are being provided by a server or other computer resource 112. The computer resource 112 associated with the human agent may be presented with an indication as to what is occurring; however, the human agent may be merely an observer or temporarily able to tend to other tasks. “; paragraph [0052], “The execution of the automated co-browsing segment instructions provides inputs, which when observed by customer endpoint 210, appear to be inputs provided by agent 206 ... “; Examiner’s Note: Skiba discloses non-human actor providing inputs to a co-browsing application interface. ).
Before the filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the agent-initiated automated co-browse of Skiba in Le Bras’ webpage replay generation device for the purpose of providing a system which is capable of adding content layers while recording a browsing session, thereby by enabling broadcasting content from the web with commentary, soundtrack, marking and other personal additions in order to improve user experience with a recording system by enabling these additional beneficial uses for recordings as suggested by Skiba(See paragraph [0006]).
Peretz discloses:
wherein performing the replication of the browsing session includes defining one or more permissible inputs for interacting with the replicated browsing session by limiting at least one input performable within the replicated browsing session by the third party relative to a plurality of possible inputs in the browsing session (Abstract; paragraph [0011], “According to an embodiment of the invention, the method further comprises enabling to edit the recorded sessions by allowing adding, cutting or changing actions and layers in said recorded sessions.” ; paragraphs [0013-0015]; paragraph [0024-0026]; paragraph [0051], “ Embodiments of the invention utilize a web browser extension or similar format to provide information sharing, and particularly session streaming between remote computers by enabling to record, edit and play web browsing actions, so as to enable a web browser program on one computer to automatically “follow” or “mimic” actions of browsing session performed by one or more input devices on a web browser program on another computer (i.e., view/play a web-browsing session by reproducing the input devices actions performed on each visited webpage during this session) …. “ ; Examiner’s Note: Peretz discloses editing a recorded browser session by adding, cutting or changing actions and added content layers in recorded browsing sessions. Thus, Peretz can limit at least one input performable within the replicated browsing session by simply removing the at least one input or replacing it. ) ;[[and]]
enabling the third party to interact with the replicated browsing session using the one or more permissible inputs for interacting with the replicated browsing session (paragraph [0102] , “An affiliate model may be managed by applying the URL navigation filter 120 to filter an affiliate ID of a user 51, if exist as part of a URL address. Optionally, enabling to replace the filtered affiliated ID with an alternative affiliate ID, thereby enabling an entity associated with the alternative affiliate ID to be credited when users that play a recorded session enter selected websites during that session (e.g., when entering commercial websites as indicated by numeral 52). Alternatively, the filtered affiliated ID may also be credited by the affiliation manager 121.”; Examiner’s Note: Thus, Perezt discloses changing an affiliate ID to enable a third party to interact with the replicated browsing session. ) ; and
modifying a skill associated with the non-human distributed actor based upon, at least in part, third party interaction with the replicated browsing session(Abstract, “ A computer-implemented method for editing a browsing session includes adding, editing, cutting or changing actions in recorded browsing sessions ... “; paragraph [0011]; paragraphs [0025-0026])
Before the filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the browsing session editing of Peretz in the Le Bras and Skiba webpage replay generation device for the purpose of providing a system which is capable of adding content layers while recording a browsing session, thereby by enabling broadcasting content from the web with commentary, soundtrack, marking and other personal additions in order to improve user experience as suggested by Peretz(See paragraph [0004]).
Per claims 2,14, and 26, Le Bras, Skiba, and Peretz disclose the computer-implemented the method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 13, and the computing system of claim 25 wherein the replication is an image-driven replication (Le Bras, Paragraphs [0070] and [0081-0082] disclose capturing snapshots of the DOM. ).
Per claims 3,15, and 27, Le Bras, Skiba, and Peretz disclose the computer-implemented the method of claim 2, the computer program product of claim 14, and the computing system of claim 26 wherein performing a replication of the browsing session for a third party includes: copying one or more pixels of the browsing session to generate at least a portion of the replicated browsing session (Le Bras, Paragraphs [0034]-[0035] and [0081]-[0082] describe capturing snapshots, i.e., pixels, of the DOM corresponding to the particular webpage .).
Per claims 4,16, and 28, Le Bras, Skiba, and Peretz disclose the computer-implemented the method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 13, and the computing system of claim 25 wherein the replication is a code-driven replication (Le Bras, paragraph [0080] describes that the data processing system initiates a session when displaying the webpage to the user in response to the user request).
Per claims 5,17, and 29, Le Bras, Skiba, and Peretz disclose the computer-implemented the method of claim 4, the computer program product of claim 16, and the computing system of claim 28 wherein performing a replication of the browsing session for a third party includes: copying at least a portion of the code associated with the browsing session to generate at least a portion of the replicated browsing session (Le Bras, paragraph [0071]-[0072] describe that the DOM for the webpage the user accessed is stored, and later accessed by the replay system for replaying the user session).
Per claims 6,18, and 30, Le Bras, Skiba, and Peretz disclose the computer-implemented the method of claim 5, the computer program product of claim 17, and the computing system of claim 29 wherein the code associated with the browsing session includes at least a portion of the document object model associated with the browsing session (Le Bras, paragraphs [0071]-[0072] describe that the DOM for the webpage the user accessed is stored, and later accessed by the replay system for replaying the user session).
Per claims 7,19, and 31, Le Bras, Skiba, and Peretz disclose the computer-implemented the method of claim 5, the computer program product of claim 17, and the computing system of claim 29 wherein the code associated with the browsing session includes at least a portion of webpage structure associated with the browsing session (Le Bras, paragraphs [0071]-[0072] describe that the DOM structure for the webpage the user accessed is stored, and later accessed by the replay system for replaying the user session).
Per claims 8,20, and 32, Le Bras, Skiba, and Peretz disclose the computer-implemented the method of claim 2, the computer program product of claim 13, and the computing system of claim 26 wherein the third party is a human distributed actor (Le Bras, paragraph [0072] describes that the replay client replays the high fidelity replay of a webpage for review and analysis by replay users.).
Per claims 9,21, and 33, Le Bras, Skiba, and Peretz disclose the computer-implemented the method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 13, and the computing system of claim 25 wherein the third party is a non-human distributed actor (Le Bras, e.g., Webpage replay server 310 as shown in Fig. 3; paragraph [0072] describes that the replay is sent to a webpage replay server 310 generates high fidelity replay of webpage 342 based on base DOM of webpage 330, DOM differential of base DOM of webpage 332, and user interaction with webpage 334 retrieved from database server 306 and/or received directly from browser 312. ).
Per claims 11, 23, and 35, Le Bras, Skiba, and Peretz disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 13, and the computing system of claim 25 wherein the browsing session is initiated by the distributed actor (paragraph [0079] describes that the capturing the page DOM and user interactions happens in response to a user retrieving a webpage via a network using a browser equipped with a recorder.).
Per claims 12, 24, and 36, Le Bras, Skiba, and Peretz disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 13, and the computing system of claim 25 wherein the browsing session is an active browsing session (paragraphs [0081]-[0082] describe that user interactions with the page are captured during the user session of using the webpage. ).
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13, and 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that LeBras and Skiba fail to disclose:
wherein performing the replication of the browsing session includes defining one or more permissible inputs for interacting with the replicated browsing session by limiting at least one input performable within the replicated browsing session by the third party relative to a plurality of possible inputs in the browsing session;
enabling the third party to interact with the replicated browsing session using the one or more permissible inputs for interacting with the replicated browsing session ; and
modifying a skill associated with the non-human distributed actor based upon, at least in part, third party interaction with the replicated browsing session.
Examiner disagrees since LeBras and Skiba were not relied up to disclose the amendments to the claims 1, 13, and 25.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of their dependence from patentable independent claims 1, 13, and 25.
The Examiner disagrees since claims 1, 13 and 25 are not patentable. Accordingly, claims 1-9,11-21, 23-33, and 35-36 are not patentable.
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-9,11-21, 23-33, and 35-36 is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ivory et al. ( US 2018/0124607 A1 ) - A method, system and computer program
product for session completion through co-browsing is claimed.
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 DARRIN HOPE whose telephone number is (571)270-5079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thr - 6:45-4:15, Fri - 6:45-3:15, Alt. Fri Off.
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 S 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.
DARRIN HOPE
Examiner
Art Unit 2178
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178