DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This non-final office action is in response to the RCE and amendment filed 29 August 2025.
Claims 2, 4-11, and 13-19 are pending. Claims 2 and 11 are independent claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
U.S. Patent No. 10,146,752
Claims 2, 4-11, and 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,146,752 (hereafter “the 752 patent”) in view of Mickens (US 2015/0286511, filed 8 April 2014).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite an obvious variant of those in the 752 patent.
With respect to claim 2, claim 1 of the 752 patent discloses a method for tracking events associated with a document on a client device, the method comprising performing, by a server system in communication with the client device:
in response to the fetch request, transmitting, to the client device, the capture agent (column 16, lines 17-19), wherein the capture agent is configured to capture a plurality of events associated with the plurality of nodes in the tree data structure, wherein each of the plurality of events includes one or more changes to the tree data structure, and wherein the plurality of events include user interactions on the document (column 16, lines 23-30)
wherein for each event, the client device is configured to: determine a timestamp for the event and identification information of a node, which is associated with the one or more changes to the tree data structure, generate an event record for each event associated with the one or more changes to the tree data structure, and store the identification information, the timestamp, an the one or more changes in the event record for the event (column 16, lines 39-47)
receiving, from the client device, the event records for the plurality of events (column 16, lines 39-47)
wherein the identification information of the node associated with the one or more changes to the tree structure is a unique node identifier (column 16, lines 40-42)
The 752 patent fails to specifically disclose:
receiving, from the client device, a fetch request for a capture agent referenced in the document having a plurality of nodes in a tree data structure
utilizing the event records to replay the user interactions according to the timestamps of the plurality of events
However, the examiner takes official notice that receiving a request at a server, from a client, for a document was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with the 752 patent disclosure of receiving a document at a client device (column 16, line 16), with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for requesting, by the client, the document to be received from the server. This would have allowed a client device the advantage of specifying a document to receive and track.
Additionally, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to utilizing an event record to track and replay changes, such as done via versioning and “undo” and “redo” changes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with the 752 patent, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have enabled a user to revert to a previous version of a document. This would have allowed for greater flexibility in editing, as a user will be able to revert to previous versions in the event of an error.
Additionally, the 752 patent fails to specifically disclose identification information of a node among the plurality of nodes, the node being associated with the one or more changes to the tree structure. However, Mickens discloses identification information of a node among the plurality of nodes, the node being associated with the one or more changes to the tree structure (paragraph 0093: Here, the state information is stored in a DOM as a key-value pair). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Mickens with the 752 patent, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for storing state date associated with modifications (Mickens: paragraph 0093).
With respect to claim 4, claim 1 of the 752 patent discloses wherein the plurality of events includes at least one of: addition of the one or more nodes in the tree data structure or a removal of one or more nodes in the tree data structure (column 16, lines 23-30).
With respect to claim 5, claim 1 of the 752 patent discloses storing a server-side capture tree data structure of the document in a server-side session storage engine of the server system (column 16, lines 49-51).
With respect to claim 6, claim 1 of the 752 patent discloses combining, by the server-side session storage engine, the event records with the server-side capture tree data structure of the document to generate a modified tree data structure from an original unmodified tree data structure (column 16, lines 49-53).
With respect to claim 7, claim 1 of the 752 patent discloses wherein the tree data structure is a document object model (DOM) (column 16, lines 20-22).
With respect to claim 8, the 752 patent discloses the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. The 752 patent fails to specifically disclose wherein the capture agent includes JavaScript. However, the examiner takes official notice that the use of JavaScript was notoriously well-known at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the well-known with the 752 patent, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for implementing the capture agent using a known programming language. This would have allowed for a user to leverage existing information, including their own knowledge and predefined functions, classes, and types, in order to create the capture agent.
With respect to claim 9, claim 1 of the 752 patent discloses capturing server-side network traffic (column 16, lines 50-51).
With respect to claim 10, claim 1 of the 752 patent discloses wherein utilizing the events records further comprises:
combining data from the server-side network traffic and the event records (column 16, lines 49-51)
The 752 patent fails to specifically disclose based on the combining, generating a visual representation of the user interactions on the document, to replay the user interactions in a replay session.
However, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to generate a visual representation utilizing an event record to track and replay changes, such as done via versioning and “undo” and “redo” changes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with the 752 patent, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have enabled a user to revert to a previous version of a document. This would have allowed for greater flexibility in editing, as a user will be able to revert to previous versions in the event of an error.
With respect to claims 11-19, the applicant discloses the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 2 and 4-10, respectively. Claims 11 and 13-19 are similarly rejected.
U.S. Patent No. 11,036,823
Claims 2, 4-11, and 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,036,823 (hereafter “the 823 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite an obvious variant of those in the 823 patent.
With respect to claim 2, claims 1 and 2 of the 823 patent discloses a method for tracking events associated with a document on a client device, the method comprising performing, by a server system in communication with the client device:
in response to the fetch request, transmitting, to the client device, the capture agent, wherein the capture agent is configured to capture a plurality of events associated with the plurality of nodes in the tree data structure, wherein each of the plurality of events includes one or more changes to the tree data structure, and wherein the plurality of events include user interactions on the document (column 16, lines 20-27)
wherein for each event, the client device is configured to: determine a timestamp for the event and identification information of a node, which is associated with the one or more changes to the tree data structure, generate an event record for each event associated with the one or more changes to the tree data structure, and store the identification information, the timestamp, and the one or more changes in the event record for the event (column 16, lines 35-38)
receiving, from the client device, event records for the plurality of events (column 16, lines 35-38)
identification information of a node among the plurality of nodes, the node being associated with the one or more changes to the tree data structure (column 16, lines 30-32)
utilizing the event records to replay the user interactions according to the timestamps of the plurality of events (column 16, lines 35-38)
wherein the identification information of the node associated with the one or more changes to the tree data structure is a unique node identifier (column 16, lines 39-42)
The 823 patent fails to specifically disclose receiving, from the client device, a fetch request for a capture agent referenced in the document having a plurality of nodes in a tree data structure.
However, the examiner takes official notice that receiving a request at a server, from a client, for a document was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with the 823 patent disclosure of receiving a document at a client device (column 16, lines 17-19), with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for requesting, by the client, the document to be received from the server. This would have allowed a client device the advantage of specifying a document to receive and track.
With respect to claim 4, claim 7 of the 823 patent discloses wherein the plurality of events includes at least one of: addition of the one or more nodes in the tree data structure or a removal of one or more nodes in the tree data structure (column 16, line 66- column 17, line 2).
With respect to claim 5, claim 8 of the 823 patent discloses storing a server-side capture tree data structure of the document in a server-side session storage engine of the server system (column 17, lines 4-5).
With respect to claim 6, claim 8 of the 823 patent discloses combining, by the server-side session storage engine, the event records with the server-side capture tree data structure of the document to generate a modified tree data structure from an original unmodified tree data structure (column 17, lines 3-8).
With respect to claim 7, claim 1 of the 823 patent discloses wherein the tree data structure is a document object model (DOM) (column 16, lines 17-19).
With respect to claim 8, the 823 patent discloses the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. The 823 patent fails to specifically disclose wherein the capture agent includes JavaScript. However, the examiner takes official notice that the use of JavaScript was notoriously well-known at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the well-known with the 823 patent, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for implementing the capture agent using a known programming language. This would have allowed for a user to leverage existing information, including their own knowledge and predefined functions, classes, and types, in order to create the capture agent.
With respect to claim 9, claim 18 of the 823 patent discloses capturing server-side network traffic (column 18, lines 12-14).
With respect to claim 10, claims 1 and 8 of the 823 patent discloses wherein utilizing the events records further comprises:
combining data from the server-side network traffic and the event records (column 17, lines 6-8)
based on the combining, generating a visual representation of the user interactions on the document, to replay the user interactions in a replay session (column 16, lines 6-38)
With respect to claims 11 and 13-19, the applicant discloses the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 2 and 3-10, respectively. Claims 11 and 13-19 are similarly rejected.
U.S. Patent No. 11,636,172
Claims 2, 4-11, and 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,636,172 (hereafter “the 172 patent”) in view of Mickens.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite an obvious variant of those in the 172 patent.
With respect to claim 2, claims 1 and 2 of the 172 patent discloses a method for tracking events associated with a document on a client device, the method comprising performing, by a server system in communication with the client device:
in response to the fetch request, transmitting, to the client device, the capture agent, wherein the capture agent is configured to capture a plurality of events associated with the plurality of nodes in the tree data structure, wherein each of the plurality of events includes one or more changes to the tree data structure, and wherein the plurality of events include user interactions on the document (column 16, lines 21-34)
wherein for each event, the client device is configured to: determine a timestamp for the event and identification information of a node, which is associated with the one or more changes to the tree data structure, generate an event record for each event associated with the one or more changes to the tree data structure, and store the identification information, the timestamp, and the one or more changes in the event record for the event (column 16, lines 37-38)
receiving, from the client device, event records for the plurality of events (column 16, lines 37-38)
utilizing the event records to replay the user interactions according to the timestamps of the plurality of events (column 16, lines 38-40)
wherein the identification information of the node associated with the one or more changes to the tree data structure is a unique node identifier (column 16, lines 41-44)
The 172 patent fails to specifically disclose receiving, from the client device, a fetch request for a capture agent referenced in the document having a plurality of nodes in a tree data structure.
However, the examiner takes official notice that receiving a request at a server, from a client, for a document was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with the 172 patent disclosure of receiving a document at a client device (column 16, lines 21-24), with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for requesting, by the client, the document to be received from the server. This would have allowed a client device the advantage of specifying a document to receive and track.
Additionally, the 172 patent fails to specifically disclose identification information of a node among the plurality of nodes, the node being associated with the one or more changes to the tree structure. However, Mickens discloses identification information of a node among the plurality of nodes, the node being associated with the one or more changes to the tree structure (paragraph 0093: Here, the state information is stored in a DOM as a key-value pair). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Mickens with the 752 patent, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for storing state date associated with modifications (Mickens: paragraph 0093).
With respect to claim 4, claim 7 of the 172 patent discloses wherein the plurality of events includes at least one of: addition of the one or more nodes in the tree data structure or a removal of one or more nodes in the tree data structure (column 17, lines 1-3).
With respect to claim 5, claim 8 of the 172 patent discloses storing a server-side capture tree data structure of the document in a server-side session storage engine of the server system (column 17, lines 5-6).
With respect to claim 6, claim 8 of the 172 patent discloses combining, by the server-side session storage engine, the event records with the server-side capture tree data structure of the document to generate a modified tree data structure from an original unmodified tree data structure (column 17, lines 7-10).
With respect to claim 7, claim 1 of the 172 patent discloses wherein the tree data structure is a document object model (DOM) (column 16, lines 22-24).
With respect to claim 8, the 172 patent discloses the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. The 172 patent fails to specifically disclose wherein the capture agent includes JavaScript. However, the examiner takes official notice that the use of JavaScript was notoriously well-known at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the well-known with the 172 patent, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for implementing the capture agent using a known programming language. This would have allowed for a user to leverage existing information, including their own knowledge and predefined functions, classes, and types, in order to create the capture agent.
With respect to claim 9, claim 8 of the 172 patent discloses capturing server-side network traffic (column 17, 5-6).
With respect to claim 10, claims 1 and 8 of the 172 patent discloses wherein utilizing the events records further comprises:
combining data from the server-side network traffic and the event records (column 17, lines 7-10)
based on the combining, generating a visual representation of the user interactions on the document, to replay the user interactions in a replay session (column 16, lines 38-40)
With respect to claims 11-19, the applicant discloses the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 2-10, respectively. Claims 11-19 are similarly rejected.
U.S. Patent No. 11,995,145
Claims 2, 4-11, and 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,995,145 (hereafter “the 145 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite an obvious variant of those in the 145 patent.
With respect to claim 2, claims 1 and 2 of the 145 patent discloses a method for tracking events associated with a document on a client device, the method comprising performing, by a server system in communication with the client device:
in response to the fetch request, transmitting, to the client device, the capture agent, wherein the capture agent is configured to capture a plurality of events associated with the plurality of nodes in the tree data structure, wherein each of the plurality of events includes one or more changes to the tree data structure, and wherein the plurality of events include user interactions on the document (column 16, lines 23-30)
wherein for each event, the client device is configured to: determine a timestamp for the event and identification information of a node, which is associated with the one or more changes to the tree data structure, generate an event record for each event associated with the one or more changes to the tree data structure, and store the identification information, the timestamp, and the one or more changes in the event record for the event (column 16, lines 31-40)
receiving, from the client device, event records for the plurality of events (column 16, lines 31-40)
utilizing the event records to replay the user interactions according to the timestamps of the plurality of events (column 16, lines 41-42)
wherein the identification information of the node associated with the one or more changes to the tree data structure is a unique node identifier (column 16, lines 45-46)
The 145 patent fails to specifically disclose receiving, from the client device, a fetch request for a capture agent referenced in the document having a plurality of nodes in a tree data structure.
However, the examiner takes official notice that receiving a request at a server, from a client, for a document was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with the 145 patent disclosure of receiving a document at a client device (column 16, lines 23-24), with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for requesting, by the client, the document to be received from the server. This would have allowed a client device the advantage of specifying a document to receive and track.
With respect to claim 4, claim 7 of the 145 patent discloses wherein the plurality of events includes at least one of: addition of the one or more nodes in the tree data structure or a removal of one or more nodes in the tree data structure (column 17, lines 3-6).
With respect to claim 5, claim 8 of the 145 patent discloses storing a server-side capture tree data structure of the document in a server-side session storage engine of the server system (column 17, lines 8-9).
With respect to claim 6, claim 8 of the 145 patent discloses combining, by the server-side session storage engine, the event records with the server-side capture tree data structure of the document to generate a modified tree data structure from an original unmodified tree data structure (column 17, lines 10-14).
With respect to claim 7, the 145 patent discloses the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. The 145 patent fails to specifically disclose wherein the tree data structure is a document object model (DOM).
However, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to parse a document to generate a corresponding DOM. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with the 145 patent, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have provided a platform independent hierarchical structure for accessing and manipulating elements of a webpage.
With respect to claim 8, the 175 patent discloses the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. The 145 patent fails to specifically disclose wherein the capture agent includes JavaScript.
However, the examiner takes official notice that the use of JavaScript was notoriously well-known at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the well-known with the 145 patent, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for implementing the capture agent using a known programming language. This would have allowed for a user to leverage existing information, including their own knowledge and predefined functions, classes, and types, in order to create the capture agent.
With respect to claim 9, claim 8 of the 145 patent discloses capturing server-side network traffic (column 17, lines 8-9).
With respect to claim 10, claims 1 and 8 of the 145 patent discloses wherein utilizing the events records further comprises:
combining data from the server-side network traffic and the event records (column 17, lines 10-14)
based on the combining, generating a visual representation of the user interactions on the document, to replay the user interactions in a replay session (column 16, lines 41-42)
With respect to claims 11 and 13-19, the applicant discloses the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 2 and 4-10, respectively. Claims 11 and 13-19 are similarly rejected.
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.
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 2, 4-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez et al. (US 2014/0137052, published 15 May 2014, hereafter Hernandez) and further in view of George et al. (US 10983625, filed 22 December 2011, hereafter George) and further in view of Bunyan et al. (GB 2425194, published 18 October 2006, hereafter Bunyan) and further in view of Mickens.
With respect to claim 2, Hernandez discloses a method for tracking events associated with a document on a client device, the method comprising performing, by a server system in communication with the client device:
receiving, from the client device, a fetch request for a capture agent referenced in the document having a plurality of nodes in a tree data structure (paragraphs 0027-0028: Here, a server side web application is provided within a browser at a client device. The browser receives a client request for a webpage to be used with the capture and replay system of the server)
in response to the fetch request, transmitting, to the client device, the capture agent, wherein the capture agent is configured to capture a plurality of events associated with the plurality of nodes in the tree data structure, wherein each of the plurality of events includes one or more changes to the tree data structure, and wherein the plurality of events include user interactions on the document (Figure 1; paragraphs 0020-0021: Here, a server application executes in the browser to capture and replay events (paragraph 0023). A capture library is used by the application to track changes to the document and/or DOM tree data structure (paragraphs 0028-0029))
wherein, for each event, the client device is configured to:
determine a timestamp for the event and identification information, which is associated with the one or more changes to the tree data structure (paragraph 0034: Here, the capture library includes timestamps and identifying sequences for modifications that were captured/detected)
receiving, from the client device, the event records for the plurality of events (paragraph 0034: Here, the capture library includes timestamps and identifying sequences for modifications that were captured/detected)
utilizing the event records to replay the user interactions according to the timestamps of the plurality of events (paragraphs 0035-0037: Here, the replay system replays the events to a user at a client)
wherein the identification information of the associated node is a unique identifier (paragraph 0034: Here, an identifier sequence is a unique identifier for the modification)
Hernandez fails to specifically disclose:
generate an event record for each event associated with the one or more changes to the tree data structure
store the identification information, the timestamp, and the one or more changes in the event record for the event
However, George, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward tracking user interactions, discloses:
generate an event record for each event associated with the one or more changes to the tree data structure (Figures 4-5; column 10, lines 7-15; column 10, lines 26-60: Here, a set of event records are generated and aggregated to generate a report associated with the hierarchical (tree) data structure)
store the identification information, the timestamp, and the one or more changes in the event record for the event (Figures 4-5; column 10, lines 7-15; column 10, lines 26-60: Here, a set of event records are generated and aggregated to generate a report associated with the hierarchical (tree) data structure)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined George with Hernandez, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for aggregating and reporting user interface events (George: column 2, lines 7-12).
Hernandez fails to specifically disclose in response to the fetch request providing the capture agent. However, Bunyan, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward tracking user activity, discloses in response to a fetch request providing the capture agent (Figure 1; paragraph 0018: Here, code is provided with the requested webpage to monitor a user’s browsing activities). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Bunyan with Hernandez, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for offloading server-side tracking to the client device. This would have provided the advantage of conserving processing power of the server and network bandwidth.
Finally, Hernandez fails to specifically disclose identification information of a node among the plurality of nodes, the node being associated with the one or more changes to the tree structure. However, Mickens discloses identification information of a node among the plurality of nodes, the node being associated with the one or more changes to the tree structure (paragraph 0093: Here, the state information is stored in a DOM as a key-value pair). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Mickens with the Hernandez-Bunyan, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for storing state date associated with modifications (Mickens: paragraph 0093).
With respect to claim 4, Hernandez, George, Bunyan, Mickens disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 2, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Hernandez fails to specifically disclose wherein the plurality of events includes at least one of: addition of the one or more nodes in the tree data structure or a removal of one or more nodes in the tree data structure.
However, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to modify a tree structure, such as a DOM, by adding or deleting nodes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with Hernandez-Bunyan, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for maintaining correspondence between a document and its corresponding tree structure.
With respect to claim 5, Hernandez, George, Bunyan, Mickens disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 2, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Hernandez discloses storing a server-side capture tree data structure of the document in a server-side session storage engine of the server system (Figure 1, items 138 and 140; paragraph 0034: Here, the captured application session data (item 140) captured by the server-side application is stored in a database (item 138)).
With respect to claim 6, Hernandez, George, Bunyan, Mickens disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 4, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Hernandez discloses combining, by the server-side session storage engine, the event records with the server-side capture tree data structure of the document to generate a modified tree data structure from an original unmodified tree data structure (Figure 1; paragraphs 0020-0021, 0023, and 0028-0029).
With respect to claim 7, Hernandez, George, Bunyan, Mickens disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 2, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Hernandez discloses wherein the tree data structure is a document object model (DOM) (paragraph 0029).
With respect to claim 8, Hernandez, George, Bunyan, Mickens disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 2, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Hernandez disclose wherein the capture agent is implemented using scripting code (paragraph 0077).
With respect to claim 9, Hernandez, George, Bunyan, Mickens disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 2, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Hernandez disclose capturing server-side network traffic (Figure 1, items 138 and 140; paragraph 0034: Here, the captured application session data (item 140) captured by the server-side application is stored in a database (item 138). Specifically, the server-side capture application is a server-side capture agent capturing traffic relating to client events).
With respect to claim 10, Hernandez, George, Bunyan, Mickens disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 9, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Hernandez disclose wherein utilizing the events records further comprises:
combining data from the server-side network traffic and the event records (Figure 1, items 138 and 140; paragraph 0034)
based on the combining, generating a visual representation of the user interactions on the document, to replay the user interactions in a replay session (paragraphs 35-37)
With respect to claims 11 and 13-19, the applicant discloses the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 2 and 4-10, respectively. Claims 11 and 13-19 are similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Hernandez, George, Bunyan, Mickens.
Further, the examiner notes that the factual assertion set forth in the Office Action dated 6 June 2026 has not been traversed. According to MPEP 2144.03(C) the official notice statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the appellant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cleland-Huang et al. (Event-Based Traceability for Managing Evolutionary Change, 2003): Discloses traceability of changes to enhance project management and maintaining system artifacts (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE R STORK whose telephone number is (571)272-4130. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 2pm; 4pm - 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, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571/272-2589. 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.
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128