DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/23/26.
Claims 1, 14 and 17 have been amended.
Claim 5 has been cancelled.
Claims 2, 15 and 18 were previously cancelled.
Claim 24 has been added.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-14, 16, 17 and 19-24 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 1, 14 and 17 (see applicant’s remarks; pages 9 and 10) 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.
In particular, the examiner has introduced Lin to disclose the amended limitation “wherein the first web page and the second web page are different web pages”, as shown in the rejection below.
Further, the applicant states that claims 3, 4, 6-13, 16, and 19-23 (see applicant’s remarks; page 10) are allowable due to their dependence on claims 1, 14 and 17. As such, the same rationale provided above regarding claims 1, 14 and 17 applies equally as well to claims 3, 4, 6-13, 16, and 19-23.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 7, 16, 19, 20 and 21, the claim recites alternative language, i.e. using the term “at least one of” and “or”, and as such, the Examiner interprets certain features to not be required due to the claim language listing the features in the alternative. The rejection below specifies the particular limitations.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 17 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deets et al. (U.S. 2023/0393710 A1) in view of Janakiraman et al. (U.S. 2023/0083688 A1) (Applicant submitted prior art; see IDS filed 06/26/25), and further in view of Lin (U.S. 2003/0061286 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 17, Deets discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a first indication of a first web browsing action associated with a first web page by a second client device from among the plurality of client devices (see Deets; paragraphs 0167 and 0173; Deets discloses in a shared environment multiple users, i.e. “plurality of client devices”, can collaborate and indicating to the users changes that have occurred. For example, receiving an indication, i.e. “a first indication”, of what part of a webpage is being displayed by a second client device, such as, where a user of the second device is viewing a webpage, i.e. “a first web browsing action associated with a first web page by a second client device”);
outputting a first representation of the first web browsing action on the first web page in the web browsing application (see Deets; paragraphs 0002, 0172, 0173, 0214 and Figure 5A; Deets discloses a web-browser application, i.e. “web browsing application”, being used and the indication may be displayed, i.e. “outputting”, such as user avatar or profile picture, i.e. “a first representation”, on the scroll bar to indicate where the webpage is being viewed, i.e. “the first web browsing action”);
receiving a second indication of a second web browsing action associated with a second web page by the second client device (see Deets; paragraphs 0216 and 0217; Deets discloses receiving, i.e. “receiving a second indication”, a mark-up including a text note or comment, i.e. “a second web browsing action “, associated with the webpage, i.e. …”associated with a second web page”), wherein the second web browsing action modifies the first representation of the first web browsing action (see Deets; paragraphs 0173, 0214, 0216, 0217; Deets discloses displaying where, e.g. the location, on a webpage the second user is viewing, i.e. “first web browsing action”, and displaying a mark-up including a text note or comment, i.e. “the second web browsing action”, at the corresponding location, e.g. where the second user is viewing. Therefore, the user provides a text note at the location of the webpage where the user is viewing, i.e. “the second web browsing action modifies the first representation of the first web browsing action”. In other words, the text note is a continuation of the user viewing a certain location of the webpage. The examiner notes that according to the specification, the first web action is modified by the second web action being a continuation of the first web action, see applicant’s specification, pages 34-35 paragraphs 0103 and 0104); and
outputting a second representation of the second web browsing action on the second web page in the web browsing application (see Deets; paragraphs 0002, 0216, 0217 and Figure 5J; Deets discloses a web-browser application, i.e. “web browsing application” and the mark-up “Did you see this?”, i.e. “second web browsing action”, being displayed, i.e. “outputting a second representation of the second web browsing action” at the corresponding location on the webpage, i.e. “the second webpage”), wherein the second representation of the second web browsing action is based on the modification to the first representation of the first web browsing action (see Deets; 0214, 0216 and 0217; Deets discloses as user viewing a location of a webpage and then providing a mark-up, e.g. text note or comment, at the corresponding location of the webpage, i.e. “based on the modification to the first representation of the first web browsing action”. In other words, the text note is a continuation of the user viewing a certain location of the webpage. The examiner notes that according to the specification, the first web action is modified by the second web action being a continuation of the first web action, see applicant’s specification, pages 34-35 paragraphs 0103 and 0104).
While Deets discloses video conferencing (see Deets; paragraph 0087) and collaborative web browsing (see Deets; paragraph 0166), Deets does not explicitly disclose joining, by a first client device, a video conference hosted by a video conference provider, the video conference including a plurality of client devices including the first client device; and executing a command to start a collaborative web browsing session among the plurality of client devices using a web browsing application, wherein the web browsing application comprises an embedded web browser included with video conference client software executing on at least one client device of the plurality of client devices.
In analogous art, Janakiraman discloses joining, by a first client device, a video conference hosted by a video conference provider, the video conference including a plurality of client devices including the first client device (see Janakiraman; paragraphs 0067 and 0068; Janakiraman discloses a number of client devices, i.e. “a plurality of client devices”, are connected to a video conference provider. Each client device, i.e. “a first client device”, executes a video conferencing application which connects to the video conference provider and joins a meeting, i.e. “joining…a video conference hosted by a video conference provider”); and
executing a command to start a collaborative web browsing session among the plurality of client devices using a web browsing application, wherein the web browsing application comprises an embedded web browser included with video conference client software executing on at least one client device of the plurality of client devices (see Janakiraman; paragraph 0068; Janakiraman discloses during a meeting, a participant using client device executes a software application to access and collaborate on content with the other participants in the video conference, i.e. “executing a command to start a collaborative web browsing session among the plurality of client devices using a web browsing application”. To do so, the participant selects an option in the video conferencing application to launch a desired application, i.e. “web browsing application”, which is then executed within the context of an execution environment provided by the video conferencing application , i.e. “…included with the video conference client software…”, such as within an embedded web browser, i.e. “web browsing application comprises an embedded web browser”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Deets and Janakiraman because they both disclose users participating in a collaborative session, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Janakiraman’s collaborative sharing using a video conferencing application into the system of Deets in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing users in a collaborative shared web-browsing session (see Deets; paragraphs 0166) to collaborating on content while also being in a video conference with other participants (see Janakiraman; paragraph 0068).
While Deets discloses a “first web browsing action” and “second web browsing action”, as discussed above, the combination of Deets and Janakiraman does not explicitly disclose wherein the first web page and the second web page are different web pages.
In analogous art, Lin discloses wherein the first web page and the second web page are different web pages (see Lin; paragraphs 0028 and 0029; Lin discloses receiving a user event during a co-browsing session. The user event occurs within a shared page, i.e. “first web page”, such as, a user clicking on an object, updating data in a web form or requesting a new web page, i.e. “second web page”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Deets, Janakiraman and Lin because they all disclose users participating in a collaborative session, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Lin’s detecting user events during a co-browsing session into the combined system of Deets and Janakiraman in order to provide the benefit of allowing interactions during a shared web-browsing session (see Deets; paragraph 0166) to include a user requesting a different/new web page to be displayed to other participants (see Lin; paragraphs 0028-0030), when the user wants to make a specific comment regarding the webpage (see Deets; paragraph 0217).
Further, Deets discloses the additional limitation of claim 14, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (see Deets; paragraph 0005; Deets discloses executable instructions for performing these functions are, optionally, included in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium or other computer program product configured for execution by one or more processors).
Further, Deets discloses the additional limitation of claim 17, a system comprising: one or more processors (see Deets; paragraph 0005; one or more processors); and one or more computer-readable storage media storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Deets; paragraph 0005; Deets discloses executable instructions for performing these functions are, optionally, included in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium or other computer program product configured for execution by one or more processors).
Regarding claim 3, Deets, Janakiraman and Lin disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Deets, Janakiraman and Lin clearly discloses wherein: the first web browsing action is a first selection of a first web browser tab (see Deets; paragraphs 0210 and 0214; Deets discloses a tab of one or more tabs is being interacted by the second electronic device associated with the second user account); and
the second web browsing action is a second selection of a second web browser tab (see Deets; paragraphs 0207 and 0218; Deets discloses a user may open new tabs, i.e. “selection of a second web browser tab”).
Regarding claim 4, Deets, Janakiraman and Lin disclose all the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above, and further the combination of Deets, Janakiraman and Lin clearly discloses wherein the first representation is an icon displayed on the first web browser tab, the icon representing the second client device (see Deets; paragraphs 0210 and 0212; Deets discloses a user icon associated with the second user account overlaying the first tab, i.e. “icon displayed on the first web browser tab”, which indicates the second client device, i.e. “the icon representing the second client device”).
Regarding claim 6, Deets, Janakiraman and Lin disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Deets, Janakiraman and Lin clearly discloses wherein:
the first web browsing action is a first cursor movement traversing the first web page (see Deets; paragraphs 0173 and 0214; Deets discloses an indication overlaying the webpage to show a cursor location, i.e. “a first cursor movement traversing the first web page”, of where the second user is viewing the webpage); and
the second web browsing action is a second cursor movement traversing the second web page (see Lin; paragraphs 0028-0030 and 0032; Lin discloses user events can include a new page requested and user events, such as scroll up or down, , i.e. “a second cursor movement traversing the second web page”, are broadcasted to the other client computers).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Deets, Janakiraman and Lin disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Deets, Janakiraman and Lin clearly discloses wherein the first representation of the first web browsing action on the first web page includes a representation of the second client device, comprising at least one of: a label associated with the second client device (see Deets; paragraphs 0182, 0216, 0217 and Figure 5J item 587; Deets discloses displaying a mark-up with an identifier, e.g. “left a comment”, indicating the second user made the mark-up, i.e. “a label associated with the second client device”), a color associated with the second client device, or a notification that the first client device is following the second client device. (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “a label associated…” alternative).
Regarding claim 9, Deets, Janakiraman and Lin disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Deets, Janakiraman and Lin clearly discloses outputting, to the second client device, a third indication of a third web browsing action associated with a third web page by the first client device (see Deets; paragraph 0166, 0173 and 0196; Deets discloses interactions occurring at a first device associated with the first user are updated on the second device associated with the second user. While both the first user and second user may be viewing the same webpage, a third webpage may be viewed, i.e. “web browsing action”, by a user, e.g. first user, i.e. “a third web browsing action associated with a third web page by the first client device”, and an indication is displayed, i.e. “outputting”, on the second device where the first user is viewing the webpage, i.e. an indication on the scroll bar or cursor location).
Regarding claim 10, Deets, Janakiraman and Lin disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Deets, Janakiraman and Lin clearly discloses outputting a notification including information about the first web browsing action and the second web browsing action (see Deets; paragraphs 0182, 0214, 0216, 0217 and Figure 5J; Deets discloses the identifier of “left a comment” indicates the specific user that left the comment, i.e. “notification including information…”. In particular, the user is viewing, i.e. “first web browsing action”, a location of a webpage and then provides a mark-up, e.g. comment, i.e. “second web browsing action”, at the corresponding location of the webpage).
Regarding claim 20, Deets, Janakiraman and Lin disclose all the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above, and further the combination of Deets, Janakiraman and Lin clearly discloses wherein: the first web browsing action is a first cursor movement traversing the first web page (see Deets; paragraphs 0173 and 0214; Deets discloses an indication overlaying the webpage to show a cursor location, i.e. “a first cursor movement traversing the first web page”, of where the second user is viewing the webpage);
the second web browsing action is a second cursor movement traversing the second web page (see Deets; paragraphs 0173 and 0214; Deets discloses an indication overlaying the webpage to show a cursor location of where the second user is viewing the webpage. In other words, there would be an indication for each cursor location as the user views different locations of the webpage, i.e. “a second cursor movement traversing the second web page”. The examiner notes that according to the specification, the first web page and the second web page are the same, see applicant’s specification as filed; page 34 paragraph 0103); and
the first representation of the first web browsing action on the first web page includes a representation of the second client device, comprising at least one of: a label associated with the second client device (see Deets; paragraphs 0182, 0216, 0217 and Figure 5J item 587; Deets discloses displaying a mark-up with an identifier, e.g. “left a comment”, indicating the second user made the mark-up, i.e. “a label associated with the second client device”), a color associated with the second client device, or a notification that the first client device is following the second client device. (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “a label associated…” alternative).
Regarding claim 21, Deets, Janakiraman and Lin disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Deets, Janakiraman and Lin clearly discloses wherein the embedded web browser is included with the video conference client software as a third-party integration (see Janakiraman; paragraphs 0015 and 0068; Janakiraman discloses the software application may be obtained from another source, such as the application publisher, i.e. “a third party”. The software application comprises the embedded web browser) or plugin (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “third-party integration” alternative).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, Deets, Janakiraman and Lin disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Deets, Janakiraman and Lin clearly discloses wherein the command to start the collaborative web browsing session among the plurality of client devices is executed in response to an indication received from the first client device caused by a selection of a user interface control (see Janakiraman; paragraph 0068; Janakiraman discloses during the meeting, a participant using a client device executes, i.e. “command…”, a software application to access and collaborate on content with the other participants in the video conference, i.e. “…to start collaborative web browsing session among the plurality of client devices”. To do so, the participant selects an option, i.e. “an indication received from the first client device caused by a selection of a user interface control”, in the video conferencing application to launch a desired application which is then executed within the context of an execution environment provided by the video conferencing application).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, Deets, Janakiraman and Lin disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Deets, Janakiraman and Lin clearly discloses the at least one client device of the plurality of client devices is a first at least one client device (see Janakiraman; paragraphs 0031 and 0068; Janakiraman discloses one or more client devices in which the devices may be desktop, laptop, tablet etc. A participant uses a client device, i.e. “a first at least one client device”, to execute collaborating on content with other participants.); and
at least one second client device of the plurality of client devices includes a standalone web browser that is external to video conference client software of the at least one second client device (see Deets; paragraphs 0028, 0167 and 0190; Deets discloses a device supports both a video conferencing application and a web browsing application, i.e. two separate applications. In a shared environment multiple users, i.e. “plurality of client devices”, can collaborate. During a shared web-browsing session, a group video call, e.g. video conference, with participants in the shared web-browsing session can be initiated. In other words, a web browsing application is used for the shared web-browsing session which is separate from the video conferencing application used for the video call, i.e. “a standalone web browser that is external to video conference client software”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, Deets, Janakiraman and Lin disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further the combination of Deets, Janakiraman and Lin clearly discloses outputting the second representation of the second web browsing action on the second web page in the web browsing application comprises transitioning the web browsing application from the first web page to the second web page (see Lin; paragraphs 0028-0030; Lin discloses detecting a user event within a shared web page, such as, requesting a new web page, i.e. “transitioning the web browsing application from the first web page to the second web page”); and
the second web browsing action associated with the second web page comprises a navigation action on the first web page that causes the web browsing application to load the second web page (see Lin; paragraphs 0028-0030; Lin discloses detecting the request for a new web page and notifying the other client computers to display the web page, i.e. “cause the web browsing application to load the second web page”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deets et al. (U.S. 2023/0393710 A1) in view of Janakiraman et al. (U.S. 2023/0083688 A1) and Lin (U.S. 2003/0061286 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Elsner et al. (U.S. 2023/0353802 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Deets, Janakiraman and Lin disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. While Deets discloses the “first web browsing action” and “second web browsing action”, as discussed above, the combination of Deets, Janakiraman and Lin does not explicitly disclose wherein: the first web browsing action is a first selection of a first control to follow the first client device; and the second web browsing action is a second selection of a second control to unfollow the first client device.
In analogous art, Elsner discloses wherein: the first web browsing action is a first selection of a first control to follow the first client device (see Elsner; paragraph 0222; Elsner discloses selecting to auto follow a leader, i.e. “a first control to follow the first client device”, of a co-browsing session); and
the second web browsing action is a second selection of a second control to unfollow the first client device (see Elsner; paragraph 0239; Elsner discloses a selection of an escape key to stop following the leader, i.e. “a second control to unfollow the first client device”, in the co-browsing session).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Deets, Janakiraman, Lin and Elsner because they all disclose users participating in a collaborative session, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate following a leader in a co-browsing session as taught by Elsner into the combined system of Deets, Janakiraman and Lin in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing different roles in the collaboration session, as well as, allowing more than one participant to be a lead in the collaboration session (see Elsner; paragraph 0045).
Claims 11-13, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deets et al. (U.S. 2023/0393710 A1) in view of Janakiraman et al. (U.S. 2023/0083688 A1) and Lin (U.S. 2003/0061286 A1), as applied to claims 1, 14 and 17 above, and further in view of Bank et al. (U.S. 2014/0237039 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Deets, Janakiraman and Lin disclose all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. While Deets discloses “receiving a first indication…” and “receiving a second indication…”, as discussed above, the combination of Deets, Janakiraman and Lin does not explicitly disclose receiving a third indication of a selection of the second client device.
In analogous art, Bank discloses receiving a third indication of a selection of the second client device (see Bank; paragraph 0052; Bank discloses a non-leader participant uses their device, i.e. “second client device”, to highlight, i.e. “receiving a third indication of a selection”, or otherwise draw attention to something on a web page that is being co-browsed).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Deets, Janakiraman, Lin and Bank because they all disclose users participating in a collaborative session, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate highlighting information in a leader/non-leader co-browsing session as taught by Bank into the combined system of Deets, Janakiraman and Lin in order to provide the benefit of improved user experience by participants being able to draw attention to specific information in a co-browsing session (see Bank; paragraph 0052), thus allowing information considered important by participants to be seen by the other participants.
Regarding claim 12, Deets, Janakiraman, Lin and Bank disclose all the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Deets, Janakiraman, Lin and Bank clearly discloses wherein the selection corresponds to a spotlight mode (see Bank; paragraph 0052; Bank discloses a non-leader participant uses their device to highlight, i.e. “a spotlight mode”, or otherwise draw attention to something on a web page that is being co-browsed).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Deets, Janakiraman, Lin and Bank disclose all the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above, and further the combination of Deets, Janakiraman, Lin and Bank clearly discloses wherein the selection corresponds to a follow mode (see Bank; paragraph 0037; Bank discloses in a co-browsing session a co-browser/participant may have one of two roles which is leader or non-leader, e.g. follower. When the co-browsing session is initiated, a leader is determined by participant input. Therefore, if a participant inputs, i.e. selects, to be a leader, then the other selection would be a non-leader, i.e. the participant follows the determined leader. In other words, since there are two roles of a leader and non-leader, if a participant does not select to be the leader, then the participant is selecting to be a non-leader, i.e. “a follow mode”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claim 11.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Deets, Janakiraman and Lin disclose all the limitations of claims 14 and 17, as discussed above. While Deets discloses “receiving a first indication…” and “receiving a second indication…”, as discussed above, the combination of Deets, Janakiraman and Lin does not explicitly disclose receiving a third indication of a selection of the second client device, wherein the selection corresponds to a spotlight mode or a follow mode.
In analogous art, Bank discloses receiving a third indication of a selection of the second client device (see Bank; paragraph 0052; Bank discloses a non-leader participant uses their device, i.e. “second client device”, to highlight, i.e. “receiving a third indication of a selection”, or otherwise draw attention to something on a web page that is being co-browsed),
wherein the selection corresponds to a spotlight mode (see Bank; paragraph 0052; Bank discloses a non-leader participant uses their device to highlight, i.e. “a spotlight mode”, or otherwise draw attention to something on a web page that is being co-browsed) or a follow mode (see Bank; paragraph 0037; Bank discloses in a co-browsing session a co-browser/participant may have one of two roles which is leader or non-leader, e.g. follower. When the co-browsing session is initiated, a leader is determined by participant input. Therefore, if a participant inputs, i.e. selects, to be a leader, then the other selection would be a non-leader, i.e. the participant follows the determined leader. In other words, since there are two roles of a leader and non-leader, if a participant does not select to be the leader, then the participant is selecting to be a non-leader, i.e. “a follow mode”) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the both alternatives).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Deets, Janakiraman, Lin and Bank because they all disclose users participating in a collaborative session, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate highlighting information in a leader/non-leader co-browsing session as taught by Bank into the combined system of Deets, Janakiraman and Lin in order to provide the benefit of improved user experience by participants being able to draw attention to specific information in a co-browsing session (see Bank; paragraph 0052), thus allowing information considered important by participants to be seen by the other participants.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Anand et al. (U.S. 2019/0171340 A1) discloses co-browsing session cursor display management.
Ledet (U.S. 10,560,492 B1) discloses tracking user actions when they are co-browsing.
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 ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other 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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 05/29/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights