DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On [line 1] of claim 11, Examiner suggests changing “The method of claim 7 wherein” to -- The method of claim 7, wherein.--. It is understood as a minor typo however appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown, Jeffrey Allen (US 2022/0374339 A1).
As in Claim 1, Brown teaches a method comprising:
at a knowledge capture device comprising one or more processors (pars. 5, 73-74, an apparatus comprises at least one processor):
in response to receiving a knowledge capture request, providing a knowledge capture agent at a client device based on a knowledge capture protocol (pars. 91-92, 104-105, 128-129, in response to receiving a request to capture or record, a screen capture component (e.g., browser extension) operating on a client computing entity injects event listeners into a webpage and begins recording a session; further see 80, 83-84, 135, 137);
orchestrating, by the knowledge capture agent via a knowledge capture user interface at the client device, a screen capture session (FIGS. 8A-8C, pars. 91-92, 104-105, 128-129, during the screen capture session, by the screen capture component (e.g., browser extension), can be initiated and processed; further see 80, 83-84, 135, 137);
obtaining screen capture content comprising a plurality of frames for at least a portion of a user interface display for the screen capture session (pars. 128-137, the device receives the screen capture data entities, including capture page images corresponding webpages during the session; further see pars. 107-111);
obtaining user interaction data associated with the screen capture content for the screen capture session (pars. 128-137, the devices identifies and receives the set of capture user interactions transmitted by the screen capture component, the capture user interactions corresponding to the actions executed with respect to interactive page elements of the webpages associated with the captured page images; further see pars. 107-111);
determining knowledge capture data based on the screen capture content and the user interaction data (pars. 128-137, the device determines the captured data based on the captured page imagers and the user interactions; further see pars. 107-111); and
providing, for display via the knowledge capture user interface at the client device, the knowledge capture data (pars. 128-137, the device provides the captured/recorded data/information (captured page images) for display on the client computing entity; further see pars. 107-111).
As in Claim 2, Brown teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Brown further teaches that wherein obtaining user interaction data associated with the screen capture content for the screen capture session comprises obtaining screen click data, keyboard entry data, input device data, metadata associated with user interface elements, gaze information, or a combination thereof (at least pars. 45-47. 108-109, 128-130 , user interactions, such as entering/typing a text input in the textbox, selecting or clicking buttons, etc.)
As in Claim 3, Brown teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Brown further teaches that wherein determining the knowledge capture data based on the screen capture content and the user interaction data comprises: selecting screenshots of the plurality of frames of the obtained screen capture content (pars. 128-137).
As in Claim 4, Brown teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Brown further teaches that wherein determining the knowledge capture data further comprises:
removing one or more screenshots based on the user interaction data (pars. 107, the automated testing workflow visualization user interface 401 enables removing captured page images from an automated texting workflow data entity)
As in Claim 7, Brown teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Brown further teaches that wherein orchestrating the screen capture session by the knowledge capture agent comprises:
detecting a trigger event (par. 128, the user may select a button 703); and
in response to the trigger event, initiating the screen capture session (par. 128, the selection of the button 703 leads to generating the web page and beginning of the captured session).
As in Claim 8, Brown teaches all the limitations of Claim 7. Brown further teaches that the trigger event is based on based on a user interactivity (pars. 45-47, 108-109, 128-137, user interactions/interactivity, such as entering/typing a text input in the textbox, selecting or clicking buttons, etc.)
As in Claim 9, Brown teaches all the limitations of Claim 7. Brown further teaches that the trigger event is based on detecting a user interface event (pars. 45-47, 106-111, user interactions, such as selecting an existing interactive page elements).
As in Claim 10, Brown teaches all the limitations of Claim 7. Brown further teaches that the trigger event is based on detecting a change of data associated with a user interface element (pars. 106-111, user interaction, such as entering data in the data entry elements or modifying the data; further see pars. 122- 129. 141).
As in Claim 12, Brown teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Brown further teaches that wherein the knowledge capture data comprises a document, video, a Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) chart, or a combination thereof (see at least FIGS. 8A-8C).
As in Claim 14, Brown teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Brown further teaches storing the knowledge capture data in a knowledge repository database (at least pars. 42-47, the captured/recorded data during the session can be stored in a storage (e.g. ,database 106).
Claims 15 and 20 are substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claim 3 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to Claim 4 and rejected under the same rationale.
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.
4. Claims 5-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, Jeffrey Allen (US 2022/0374339 A1) in view of Rusu et al. (US 10382739 B1).
As in Claim 5, Brown teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Brown does not teach that wherein determining the knowledge capture data further comprises: determining a subset of the one or more of the selected screenshots for annotations; and providing an annotation tool for annotating at least a portion of each screenshot of the subset of the one or more of the selected screenshots.
However, in the same field of the invention, Rusu teaches that wherein determining the knowledge capture data further comprises:
determining a subset of the one or more of the selected screenshots for annotations (col. 23, lines 17-55, objects on the screenshots can be selected or indicated for tagging; further see col. 30, line 9 to col. 21, line 65); and
providing an annotation tool for annotating at least a portion of each screenshot of the subset of the one or more of the selected screenshots (col. 23, lines 17-55, tags (annotations) can be added/placed with selectable options ; further see col. 30, line 9 to col. 21, line 65).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for capturing the screen/webpage and receiving the capture data and user interactions during the recording session, as taught by Brown, and to provide the way to place tags on the selected screenshots, as taught by Rusu. The motivation is to easily add tags or annotation for indicated areas or objects on the screenshots.
As in Claim 6, Brown-Rusu teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Brown-Rusu further teaches that wherein the knowledge capture data comprises annotations to the one or more of the selected screenshots (Rusu, col. 23, lines 17-55, ; further see col. 30, line 9 to col. 21, line 65).
Claim 19 is substantially similar to Claim 5 and rejected under the same rationale.
5. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, Jeffrey Allen (US 2022/0374339 A1) in view of Walber et al. (US 2020/0125481 A1).
As in Claim 11, Brown teaches all the limitations of Claim 7. Brown does not teach that the trigger event is based on gaze information of a user.
However, in the same field of the invention, Walber teaches that the trigger event is based on gaze information of a user (pars. 76-79, 100-101, 108, gaze interactions are not just recorded-they are directly projected on to the screenshots or screenshot clusters to show where users looked, how long, and the sequence of their gaze).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for capturing the screen/webpage and receiving the capture data and user interactions during the recording session, as taught by Brown, and to detect the gaze interactions during the capture session, as taught by Walber. The motivation is to visually link where the user looked to what was on the screen, enabling meaningful analysis of user interactions and behavior.
6. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, Jeffrey Allen (US 2022/0374339 A1) in view of Bolajwar et al. (US 2017/0337122 A1)
As in Claim 13, Brown teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Brown does not teach that wherein providing the knowledge capture agent at the client device comprises: determining that the knowledge capture agent is not installed at the client device; and pushing an installation element to the client device for installation of the knowledge capture agent.
However, in the same field of the invention, Bolajwar teaches that wherein providing the knowledge capture agent at the client device comprises:
determining that the knowledge capture agent is not installed at the client device (par. 27; further see pars. 6 and 54-56, a web portal user interface 26 determines whether a recorder 22 is installed on the host computing device. In response to a determination that the recorder 22 is not installed on the host computing device, the web portal UI 26 asks user to install the recorder 22 from an app store by clicking a link or button); and
pushing an installation element to the client device for installation of the knowledge capture agent (pars. 27, 6 and 54-56).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for capturing the screen/webpage and receiving the capture data and user interactions during the recording session, as taught by Brown, and to ask user to install the recorder when it is not installed, as taught by Bolajwar. The motivation is to ask user to install a capture agent for precise, automated, and visual text script creation without manually coding the script.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179