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 .
The amendment filed on 02/05/2026 has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1-7, 10-11, and 13-30 in the amendment. Claims 8, 9, and 12 are cancelled. Claims 31-34 are newly added.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, and 13-34 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 10-11, and 13-34 filed on 02/05/2026 have been considered but they are deemed to be moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 17, 19, 22, 24-26, 28, and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17, line 9, “the server” should read “the user interaction monitoring server device”;
Claim 19, line 6, “client device” should read “the client device”;
Claim 19, lines 8-9, “expected user behaviour” should read “the expected user behavior”;
Claim 22, line 12, “expected user behaviour” should read “the expected user behavior”;
Claim 24, line 3, “a client device” should read “the client device”;
Claim 25, lines 3-4, “the user web enabled device” should read “the web enabled device”;
Claim 26, line 2, “a web enabled device” should read “the web enabled device”;
Claim 26, line 11, “the server device” should read “the user interaction monitoring server device”;
Claim 26, line 15, “the server device” should read “the user interaction monitoring server device”;
Claim 26, line 24, “the server device” should read “the user interaction monitoring server device”;
Claim 28, line 8, “a client device” should read “the client device”;
Claim 33, line 28, “client device” should read “the client device”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 13-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “which first configuration message” in line 13, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to the scope of the limitation and “which” implies a question. Should the limitation read “the first configuration message” or “another first configuration message”. Same rejection applies to claim 27.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “the first configuration message” in line 16, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the first configuration message” is referring to “a first configuration message” in claim 1, line 13, or to “first configuration message” in claim 1, line 13, or to a different/distinct first configuration message. Same rejection applies to claim 27.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “which second configuration message” in lines 19-20, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to the scope of the limitation and “which” implies a question. Should the limitation read “the second configuration message” or “another second configuration message”. Same rejection applies to claim 27.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in line 22, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 1, line 19, or to “second configuration message” in claim 1, lines 19-20, or to a different/distinct second configuration message. Same rejection applies to claim 27.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “the first configuration message” in line 26, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the first configuration message” is referring to “a first configuration message” in claim 1, line 13, or to “first configuration message” in claim 1, line 13, or to a different/distinct first configuration message. Same rejection applies to claim 27.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in lines 26-27, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 1, line 19, or to “second configuration message” in claim 1, lines 19-20, or to a different/distinct second configuration message. Same rejection applies to claim 27.
Regarding claim 4, claim limitation recites “the first configuration message” in line 2, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the first configuration message” is referring to “a first configuration message” in claim 1, line 13, or to “first configuration message” in claim 1, line 13, or to a different/distinct first configuration message.
Regarding claim 4, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in line 3, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 1, line 19, or to “second configuration message” in claim 1, lines 19-20, or to a different/distinct second configuration message.
Regarding claim 4, claim limitation recites “the first parameter but with a second sampling specification which second sampling specification differs from a first sampling specification with which first sample specification the first parameter is sampled in response to the first configuration message” in lines 7-9, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. The examiner is unable to determine the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 4, claim limitation recites “the first configuration message” in line 9, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the first configuration message” is referring to “a first configuration message” in claim 1, line 13, or to “first configuration message” in claim 1, line 13, or to a different/distinct first configuration message.
Regarding claim 6, claim limitation recites “the monitoring operation” in line 6, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the monitoring operation” is referring to “the monitoring operation of the client side module” in claim 1, line 17, or to “the monitoring operation according to the first specification” in claim 6, line 2, or to “the monitoring operation according to the second specification” in claim 6, lines 2-3, or to a different/distinct monitoring operation.
Regarding claim 7, claim limitation recites “the first configuration message” in line 2, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the first configuration message” is referring to “a first configuration message” in claim 1, line 13, or to “first configuration message” in claim 1, line 13, or to a different/distinct first configuration message.
Regarding claim 7, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in lines 2-3, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 1, line 19, or to “second configuration message” in claim 1, lines 19-20, or to a different/distinct second configuration message.
Regarding claim 10, claim limitation recites “the first configuration message” in line 2, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the first configuration message” is referring to “a first configuration message” in claim 1, line 13, or to “first configuration message” in claim 1, line 13, or to a different/distinct first configuration message.
Regarding claim 10, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in line 4, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 1, line 19, or to “second configuration message” in claim 1, lines 19-20, or to a different/distinct second configuration message.
Regarding claim 11, claim limitation recites “which first configuration message” in line 10, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to the scope of the limitation and “which” implies a question. Should the limitation read “the first configuration message” or “another first configuration message”. Same rejection applies to claim 28.
Regarding claim 11, claim limitation recites “which second configuration message” in lines 23-24, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to the scope of the limitation and “which” implies a question. Should the limitation read “the second configuration message” or “another second configuration message”. Same rejection applies to claim 28.
Regarding claim 11, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in lines 30-31, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 11, line 23, or to “second configuration message” in claim 11, lines 23-24, or to a different/distinct second configuration message. Same rejection applies to claim 28.
Regarding claim 17, claim limitation recites “which second configuration message” in lines 10-11, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to the scope of the limitation and “which” implies a question. Should the limitation read “the second configuration message” or “another second configuration message”.
Regarding claim 20, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in line 4, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 11, line 23, or to “second configuration message” in claim 11, lines 23-24, or to a different/distinct second configuration message.
Regarding claim 20, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in line 5, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 11, line 23, or to “second configuration message” in claim 11, lines 23-24, or to a different/distinct second configuration message.
Regarding claim 21, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in line 3, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 11, line 23, or to “second configuration message” in claim 11, lines 23-24, or to a different/distinct second configuration message.
Claims 21 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: relationship between “detected behavior”, “the expected behavior” and “user behavior as identified from the information received from the software application”. Same rejection applies to claim 33
Regarding claim 21, claim limitation recites “detected behaviour being further from the expected behaviour” in lines 6-7, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear how is a detected behavior further from expected behavior. Same rejection applies to claim 33.
Regarding claim 22, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in line 9, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 11, line 23, or to “second configuration message” in claim 11, lines 23-24, or to a different/distinct second configuration message.
Regarding claim 23, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in line 5, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 11, line 23, or to “second configuration message” in claim 11, lines 23-24, or to a different/distinct second configuration message.
Regarding claim 25, claim limitation recites “said first configuration message” in line 6, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “said first configuration message” is referring to “a first configuration message” in claim 11, line 10, or to “first configuration message” in claim 11, line 10, or to a different/distinct first configuration message.
Regarding claim 25, claim limitation recites “said second configuration message” in lines 7-8, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 11, line 23, or to “second configuration message” in claim 11, lines 23-24, or to a different/distinct second configuration message.
Regarding claim 26, claim limitation recites “which first configuration message” in line 12, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to the scope of the limitation and “which” implies a question. Should the limitation read “the first configuration message” or “another first configuration message”.
Regarding claim 26, claim limitation recites “which second configuration message” in line 25, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to the scope of the limitation and “which” implies a question. Should the limitation read “the second configuration message” or “another second configuration message”.
Regarding claim 26, claim limitation recites “said first configuration message” in line 31, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “said first configuration message” is referring to “a first configuration message” in claim 26, line 11 or to “first configuration message” in claim 26, line 12, or to a different/distinct first configuration message.
Regarding claim 26, claim limitation recites “said second configuration message” in line 33, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “said second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 26, line 25, or to “second configuration message” in claim 26, line 25, or to a different/distinct second configuration message.
Regarding claim 31, claim limitation recites “which first configuration message” in line 11, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to the scope of the limitation and “which” implies a question. Should the limitation read “the first configuration message” or “another first configuration message”.
Regarding claim 31, claim limitation recites “the first configuration message” in line 14, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the first configuration message” is referring to “a first configuration message” in claim 31, line 11, or to “first configuration message” in claim 31, line 11, or to a different/distinct first configuration message.
Regarding claim 31, claim limitation recites “which second configuration message” in lines 17-18, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to the scope of the limitation and “which” implies a question. Should the limitation read “the second configuration message” or “another second configuration message”.
Regarding claim 31, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in line 20, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 31, line 17, or to “second configuration message” in claim 31, lines 17-18, or to a different/distinct second configuration message.
Regarding claim 31, claim limitation recites “the first configuration message” in line 23, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the first configuration message” is referring to “a first configuration message” in claim 31, line 11, or to “first configuration message” in claim 31, line 11, or to a different/distinct first configuration message.
Regarding claim 31, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in lines 24-25, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 31, line 17, or to “second configuration message” in claim 31, lines 17-18, or to a different/distinct second configuration message.
Regarding claim 32, claim limitation recites “which first configuration message” in line 9, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to the scope of the limitation and “which” implies a question. Should the limitation read “the first configuration message” or “another first configuration message”.
Regarding claim 32, claim limitation recites “which second configuration message” in lines 21-22, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to the scope of the limitation and “which” implies a question. Should the limitation read “the second configuration message” or “another second configuration message”.
Regarding claim 32, claim limitation recites “which second configuration message” in line 31, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to the scope of the limitation and “which” implies a question. Should the limitation read “the second configuration message” or “another second configuration message”.
Regarding claim 33, claim limitation recites “which first configuration message” in line 9, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to the scope of the limitation and “which” implies a question. Should the limitation read “the first configuration message” or “another first configuration message”.
Regarding claim 33, claim limitation recites “which second configuration message” in lines 21-22, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to the scope of the limitation and “which” implies a question. Should the limitation read “the second configuration message” or “another second configuration message”.
Regarding claim 33, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in line 34, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 33, line 21, or to “second configuration message” in claim 33, lines 21-22, or to a different/distinct second configuration message.
Regarding claim 33, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in lines 34-35, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 33, line 21, or to “second configuration message” in claim 33, lines 21-22, or to a different/distinct second configuration message.
Regarding claim 33, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in line 37, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 33, line 21, or to “second configuration message” in claim 33, lines 21-22, or to a different/distinct second configuration message.
Regarding claim 33, claim limitation recites “the expected user behaviour” in line 40, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the expected user behaviour” is referring to “expected user behaviour” in claim 33, line 27, or to “expected user behaviour” in claim 33, lines 30-31, or to a different/distinct expected user behavior.
Regarding claim 34, claim limitation recites “which first configuration message” in line 9, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to the scope of the limitation and “which” implies a question. Should the limitation read “the first configuration message” or “another first configuration message”.
Regarding claim 34, claim limitation recites “which second configuration message” in lines 21-22, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to the scope of the limitation and “which” implies a question. Should the limitation read “the second configuration message” or “another second configuration message”.
Regarding claim 34, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in line 34, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 34, line 21, or to “second configuration message” in claim 34, lines 21-22, or to a different/distinct second configuration message.
Regarding claim 34, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in lines 34-35, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 34, line 21, or to “second configuration message” in claim 34, lines 21-22, or to a different/distinct second configuration message.
Regarding claim 34, claim limitation recites “the second configuration message” in lines 41-42, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second configuration message” is referring to “a second configuration message” in claim 34, line 21, or to “second configuration message” in claim 34, lines 21-22, or to a different/distinct second configuration message.
All dependent claims are rejected as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thomas et al. (US 2009/0271514 A1). A client component installed in a client device is operative to monitor usage of the client device and generate corresponding usage data.
Hwu et al. (US 11,276,106 B2). The purchase tracking plug-in monitors the user’s activities over the World Wide Web via the Internet browser.
Fransen (US 2014/0201351 A1). A segment generation module may be embedded as part of a browser and used to monitor user interaction in navigating between webpages ([0036]).
O’donnell et al. (US 2014/0026081 A1). Monitoring a user interaction with a webpage, using a client side module at the web enabled device; sending monitoring information to a server.
Kim et al. (US 9,672,338 B1). Rollback to a previous version if a new version fails and/or a user wants to roll back.
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 KAYLEE J HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
Kaylee Huang
03/19/2026
/KAYLEE J HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447