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 amendment filed on 6/24/2026. In the amendment claim 17 is added, resulting in claims 1-17 pending.
The previous rejections of claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement, and claims 2, 5, 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph have been withdrawn in view of the amendments and in response to the applicant’s arguments.
The previous rejections of claim(s) 1-5 and 8-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bekmambetov et al., USPAT 10,083,159 B1, 9/15/2018, and claim(s) 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bekmambetov et al in view of White et al., USPAT 2019/0146616 A1 have been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The current title states: “INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bekmambetov et al., USPAT 10,083,159 B1, 9/15/2018 in view of Webber et al., USPAT 10,965,766 B2.
Per independent claim 1, Bekmambetov et al discloses the claimed information processing system comprising: one or a plurality of processors configured to manage input information that is information input to a website by a first user, in association with link information of the website (col.4, lines 35+, “A URL of the visited web page..”; col. 5, line 65, “During recording every mouse movement and interaction with the page area recorded” ; and
in a case where an image related to the link information displayed on a display unit is selected by a second user different from the first user, display the input information of the first user associated with the link information on the display unit. (col.2, line 33, “playback of …each page and all user interactions”; col.2, line 23, the invention can be used for “entertaining or instructional…” showing the playback by another user.)
However, Bekmambetov et al. does not appear to explicitly disclose the newly added limitations including:
acquire input information including a value for an HTML tag of the website;
generate a link object including an image related to link information of the website;
store the link object in association with the input information and the link information of the website and
display the value input by the first user associated with the link object as a value of a corresponding HTML tag on the website displayed on the display unit operated by the second user.
The missing feature is taught by Webber et al. Like Bekmambetov et al., Webber et al. teaches the replaying the user interaction to a website. Webber et al. provides different tools for analyzing different users’ interactions to a website along with providing a replay window for generating the exact playing back of those interactions with respect to the website. In the prior art, Webber et al. discloses the newly amended limitations including:
acquire input information including a value for an HTML tag of the website; (col.22, line 41, using a reconstituted initial DOM” and “entry of text” show the input of the particular tag of the user interface element for accepting the text input. ; col.1, lines 8+, “a user to input data (e.g., using text boxes), make data selections (e.g., using radio buttons, check boxes, or drop down menus)…”);
generate a link object including an image related to link information of the website; (col.22, line 26, “The session replay data can include interface data that specifies structure of the user interface…” and col.22, line 31, “data that specifies each element that is rendered by the user …that can be used to reconstitute a DOM.” show the user interface image information stored as the structure data).
store the link object in association with the input information and the link information of the website (col., 21, lines 55 to col.22, line 12 shows the storage of all previous interaction along with the page and page elements.); and
display the value input by the first user associated with the link object as a value of a corresponding HTML tag on the website displayed on the display unit operated by the second (col.22, line 41, “Execution of the playback data can replay… using a reconstituted initial DOM… .. entry of text… based on the user interaction data of the session replay data” shows the display of the GUI element image, e.g., text entry box along with the actual text inputted by the first user.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Webber et al.’s teaching into Bekmambetov et al, since Webber et al. pointed out that replaying all the graphical user interface element images (col.1, line 5-17) helped the second user to better understand the events of the previous sessions.
Per dependent claim 2, Bekmambetov et al. teaches display the input information of the first user to the website accessed by the second user, among the input information of the first user. Col., 2, lines 33-60).
Per dependent claim 3, Bekmambetov et al discloses display the input information of the first user to the website accessed by the second user, in accordance with a transition of a web page included in the website (col.2, line 34, “a series of user visits” and col.7, lines 15+, “an event timeline that contains both time code…” shows a time transition in the recorded session.; col.8, line 22, “watching transitions from page to page”)
Per dependent claim 4, Bekmambetov et al discloses a display that the input information of the first user in a state in which the second user does not access the website related to the selected image (col.8, lines 15+, where the viewing user is given the option to access or not access the content by as ‘the playback can click a link in the browser”).
Per dependent claim 5, Bekmambetov et al discloses identifiably display a component selected by the first user, among components of a web page included in the website related to the image selected by the second user (col.8, line 20, “the viewer can click any link in the playback”).
Per dependent claim 8, Bekmambetov et al discloses that in a case where a plurality of pieces of input information input by a plurality of first users are associated with one link information, identifiably display each of the plurality of pieces of input information (See FIG8B, for example, where a given web page, e.g., www.amazon.com has a multiple sessions recorded, and that recording can be done by anyone using the computer.) Also, Webber et al., in FIG.9, item 941 shows the identification of different users with the corresponding user interface element interacted.
Per dependent claim 9, Bekmambetov et al disclose displaying each of the plurality of pieces of input information for each of the first users who input the input information (for example in FIG.8B, the input information of recording dates is provided).
Per dependent claim 10, Bekmambetov et al discloses displaying a list of contents of the plurality of pieces of input information (Fig 8B has a plurality of portions in the information such as years, months, dates, etc...
Per dependent claims 11 and 12, Bekmambetov et al discloses that in a case where a plurality of pieces of input information input by a plurality of first users are associated with one link information, display user information indicating each of the plurality of first users, together with the input information, identifiably display the user information between the first user who inputs the input information to one web page included in the website accessed by using the one link information and the first user who does not input the input information to the one web page. Note that FIG.8B at the top, right shows the identity of the first user, i.e., “daniel @ danielk…” Since anyone with the pluggin and the account can use the system, that is a plurality of users (or “first users”) that can record.
Per dependent claim 13, Bekmambetov et al discloses that in a case where the image is selected by the second user and one first user is selected by the second user among first users who input the input information associated with the link information related to the image, display a new image related to the link information associated with the input information of the one first user (col.8, line 19, “All links are live during the playback, which means the viewer can click any link in the playback window to open a new window”).
Per dependent claim 14, Bekmambetov et al discloses displaying a button image that accepts an instruction related to an association between the input information to the website and the link information of the website from the first user, in association with the image (See FIG.8A, top right, the “Start Recording” button associates the web pages to be associated with the user inputs to be provided during the browsing session.
Independent claims 15 and 16 recite similar limitations as claim 1, and are similarly rejected under the same rationale.
Per newly added claim 17, Bekmambetov et al. in view Webber et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, the rejection incorporated herein. Furthermore, Webber et al. discloses that the value input by the first user is displayed as reference information and is displayed outside an input field of the website displayed on the displayed unit operated by the second user (see FIGs. 2 and 3, for example, Items 225, 228 shows the user interaction value information; col.13, lines 30-38, “an event element 225 for an event that occurred while the page was being presented..,” note that col.1, lines 8+, teach the event includes the elements with values such as text boxes and drop down menus, for example.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Webber et al.’s teaching into Bekmambetov et al, since Webber et al. taught the advantages of viewing the replaying information with more details (col. 24, “The user session detail area…”).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bekmambetov et al. in view of Webber et al., as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of White et al., USPAT 2019/0146616 A1.
Per dependent claims 6-7, Bekmambetov et al. in view of Webber et al. discloses the claim system of claim 1 but does not disclose a feature that does not display a secret content of information satisfying a predetermined condition on the display unit even in a case where the information is the input information of the first user to the website related to the image selected by the second user.
White et al., in also disclosing a replay or user interaction with a webpage, discloses the feature of masking private information like personally identifiable information (Paragraph [0073], [0074]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Webber et al.’s teaching into that of the teaching into Bekmambetov et al. and White et al. since it would have provided a means to protect privacy of the users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 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. As explained in the rejections above, the teaching of Webber et al. has been incorporated into the teachings of Bekmambetov et al. and White et al. to address the newly amended limitations.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-10884907-B1 2021-01-05 Zhao; Jiawei G06F11/3438 1/1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Hong whose telephone number 571-272-4124.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 10AM-6PM. 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, a supervisor, William Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. 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.
/STEPHEN S HONG/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights