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 .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to because detailed features of figures 6A-6B and 7A-7B (e.g., text and graphical elements) in screenshots are unclear and too blurry to be readable. See MPEP 608.02. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121 (d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1-5, 12-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sotiriou et al. (US 2025/0069086 A1).
As in Claim 1, Sotiriou teaches a method comprising:
obtaining one or more logs indicating navigational information regarding a workflow (at least pars. 4, 36-37, 39, 54-55, 79, 85, a customer data platform (CDP) 104/system aggregates and stores customer profile data records indicating navigational information regarding a workflow, such as navigational information on website, mobile apps, email interactions, etc.);
identifying, based on the one or more logs, a portion of the navigational information that satisfies an efficiency criterion (at least pars. 54-55, 79-84, 113, the CDP/system can identify whether the customer’s profile data records are relevant to the customer’s current activity or interaction context (i.e., customer’s current interaction or situation)); and
generating, from a natural language model and based on the portion of the navigational information, suggested navigation information related to the workflow (at least pars. 27, 37, 69, 71, 85, 107-109, a large language model (LLM) generates suggested navigation information related to the workflow (e.g., interactions on website, mobile apps, email, conversations, etc.) based on the customer profile data records).
As in Claim 2, Sotiriou teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Sotiriou further teaches generating one or more outputs indicating the suggested navigation information (FIG. 9, pars. 107-109, an agent dashboard 900 displays a “next-best-action” recommendation 902 ).
As in Claim 3, Sotiriou teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Sotiriou further teaches that navigation of the workflow is by way of a graphical user interface (FIG. 9, pars. 107-109).
As in Claim 4, Sotiriou teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Sotiriou further teaches that wherein generating one or more outputs indicating the suggested navigation information comprises generating one or more outputs overlaying part of the graphical user interface (FIG. 9, pars. 107-109, the “next-best-action” recommendation 902 is being presented as a pop-up window ).
As in Claim 5, Sotiriou teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Sotiriou further teaches determining that an in-progress navigation of the workflow meets an inefficiency criterion, wherein identifying the portion of the navigational information that satisfies the efficiency criterion and generating the suggested navigation information related to the workflow are performed responsive to determining that the in-progress navigation of the workflow meets the inefficiency criterion (pars. 26, 64-65, 69, 71, 85, 96, 107-108, the system can identify customer issues, error, or request (e.g., technical issues with product, reporting issues, error, etc.), then the system can generate navigation information related to the workflow (e.g., interactions on website, mobile apps, email, conversations, etc.) based on the customer profile data records; further see rejection of claim 1).
Claims 12 and 17 are substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
As in Claim 13, Sotiriou teaches all the limitations of Claim 12. Sotiriou further teaches generating one or more outputs indicating the suggested navigation information, wherein navigation of the workflow is by way of a graphical user interface (FIG. 9, pars. 107-109, an agent dashboard 900 displays a “next-best-action” recommendation 902 ), and wherein generating one or more outputs indicating the suggested navigation information comprises generating one or more outputs overlaying part of the graphical user interface (FIG. 9, pars. 107-109, the “next-best-action” recommendation 902 is being presented as a pop-up window).
Claims 14 and 18 are substantially similar to Claim 5 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 6, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotiriou et al. (US 2025/0069086 A1) in view of Starikova et al. (US 2015/0324903 A1).
As in Claim 6, Sotiriou teaches all the limitations of Claim 5. Sotiriou does not teach determining that the in-progress navigation of the workflow meets the inefficiency criterion comprises determining that a user has not provided an input to or navigated between pages of the workflow for more than a threshold period of time.
However, in the same field of the invention, Starikova teaches determining that the in-progress navigation of the workflow meets the inefficiency criterion comprises determining that a user has not provided an input to or navigated between pages of the workflow for more than a threshold period of time (pars. 2, 170, 173, the system determines/detects idle state as inactivity beyond a time threshold).
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 generating suggested navigation information based on the customer profile data records, as taught by Sotiriou, and to provide interaction information including the idle state, as taught by Starikova. The motivation is to determine idle behavior so the system can proactively off assistance before the user becomes stuck or leave the process on the websites.
As in Claim 15, Sotiriou teaches all the limitations of Claim 14. Sotiriou does not teach determining that the in-progress navigation of the workflow meets the inefficiency criterion comprises at least one of: (i) determining that a user has not provided an input to or navigated between pages of the workflow for more than a threshold period of time or (ii) determining that a user is about to interact with an aspect of a graphical user interface that causes the graphical user interface to cancel the workflow or to return to a prior step of the in-progress navigation of the workflow.
However, in the same field of the invention, Starikova teaches determining that the in-progress navigation of the workflow meets the inefficiency criterion comprises at least one of: (i) determining that a user has not provided an input to or navigated between pages of the workflow for more than a threshold period of time or (ii) determining that a user is about to interact with an aspect of a graphical user interface that causes the graphical user interface to cancel the workflow or to return to a prior step of the in-progress navigation of the workflow (pars. 2, 170, 173, the system monitors activities/interactions and can determine/detect idle state as inactivity beyond a time threshold).
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 generating suggested navigation information based on the customer profile data records, as taught by Sotiriou, and to provide interaction information including the idle state, as taught by Starikova. The motivation is to determine idle behavior so the system can proactively off assistance before the user becomes stuck or leave the process on the websites.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to Claim 15 and rejected under the same rationale.
5. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotiriou et al. (US 2025/0069086 A1) in view of Vasudevan et al. (US 2014/0380199 A1).
As in Claim 7, Sotiriou teaches all the limitations of Claim 5. Sotiriou does not teach determining that the in-progress navigation of the workflow meets the inefficiency criterion comprises determining that a user is about to interact with an aspect of a graphical user interface that causes the graphical user interface to cancel the workflow or to return to a prior step of the in-progress navigation of the workflow.
However, in the same field of the invention, Vasudevan teaches determining that the in-progress navigation of the workflow meets the inefficiency criterion comprises determining that a user is about to interact with an aspect of a graphical user interface that causes the graphical user interface to cancel the workflow or to return to a prior step of the in-progress navigation of the workflow (pars. 30-32, 44-45, the system monitors activities/interactions and can determine interactions including selection of return to the webpage form the landing page).
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 generating suggested navigation information based on the customer profile data records, as taught by Sotiriou, and to provide interaction information including selection of return button, as taught by Vasudevan. The motivation is to user various interaction information for dynamically present contextually relevant additional entities/content on the webpage.
6. Claims 8-9, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotiriou et al. (US 2025/0069086 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 2021/0374577 A1).
As in Claim 8, Sotiriou teaches all the limitations of Claim 5. Sotiriou does not teach that wherein obtaining one or more logs indicating navigational information regarding the workflow comprises obtaining logs indicating navigational information regarding prior navigations of the workflow that match at least two steps of the in-progress navigation of the workflow.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Lin teaches that wherein obtaining one or more logs indicating navigational information regarding the workflow comprises obtaining logs indicating navigational information regarding prior navigations of the workflow that match at least two steps of the in-progress navigation of the workflow (pars. 2-3, 7, 41, 54-58, the system can compare a current user action sequence against past user action sequences).
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 generating suggested navigation information based on the customer profile data records, as taught by Sotiriou, and to provide the way to determine whether the current user action sequences matches with the past action sequence, as taught by Lin. The motivation is to provide necessary information based on the matched user action sequence, thereby minimizing any delay in responding to users and enhancing the efficiency of the interaction.
As in Claim 9, Sotiriou teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Sotiriou does not teach that obtaining one or more logs indicating navigational information regarding the workflow comprises obtaining logs indicating navigational information regarding prior navigations of the workflow that match at least two steps of an in-progress navigation of the workflow.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Lin teaches that obtaining one or more logs indicating navigational information regarding the workflow comprises obtaining logs indicating navigational information regarding prior navigations of the workflow that match at least two steps of an in-progress navigation of the workflow (pars. 2-3, 7, 41, 54-58, the system can compare a current user action sequence against past user action sequences).
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 generating suggested navigation information based on the customer profile data records, as taught by Sotiriou, and to provide the way to determine whether the current user action sequences matches with the past action sequence, as taught by Lin. The motivation is to provide necessary information based on the matched user action sequence, thereby minimizing any delay in responding to users and enhancing the efficiency of the interaction.
Claims 16 and 20 are substantially similar to Claim 8 and rejected under the same rationale.
7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotiriou et al. (US 2025/0069086 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 2021/0374577 A1) and further in view of Luo, Wenping (US 2016/0259800 A1).
As in Claim 10, Sotiriou-Lin teaches all the limitations of Claim 9. Sotiriou-Lin does not teach: wherein steps of the in-progress navigation of the workflow correspond to pages of a graphical user interface that are identified by respective universally unique identifiers, wherein the one or more logs indicating navigational information regarding the workflow include respective sequences of universally unique identifiers identifying respective pages of the graphical user interface, and wherein obtaining logs indicating navigational information regarding prior navigations of the workflow that match at least two steps of the in-progress navigation of the workflow comprises obtaining logs that include sequences of universally unique identifiers that match at least the universally unique identifiers identifying the pages corresponding to at least two most recent steps of the in-progress navigation of the workflow.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Luo teaches: wherein steps of the in-progress navigation of the workflow correspond to pages of a graphical user interface that are identified by respective universally unique identifiers, wherein the one or more logs indicating navigational information regarding the workflow include respective sequences of universally unique identifiers identifying respective pages of the graphical user interface, and wherein obtaining logs indicating navigational information regarding prior navigations of the workflow that match at least two steps of the in-progress navigation of the workflow comprises obtaining logs that include sequences of universally unique identifiers that match at least the universally unique identifiers identifying the pages corresponding to at least two most recent steps of the in-progress navigation of the workflow(see at least pars. 6-7, 47, 54-58-62, 70, 75-79, the system can determine a webpage accessing request (current activity) including a path/sequence structure and the system them perform a match operation with a previously stored brewing history entry in the cached sequence).
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 generating suggested navigation information based on the customer profile data records, as taught by Sotiriou, in view of Lin’s teachings, and to provide the way to determine whether the current user action sequences of the webpages matches with the past action sequence, as taught by Luo. The motivation is to provide necessary information or content based on the matched user action sequence, thereby minimizing any delay in responding to users and enhancing the efficiency of the interaction.
8. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotiriou et al. (US 2025/0069086 A1) in view of Kulkarni et al. (US 2022/0107852 A1).
As in Claim 11, Sotiriou teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Sotiriou does not teach: wherein identifying the portion of the navigational information that satisfies the efficiency criterion comprises at least one of (i) identifying at least one log of the one or more logs that is related to a first particular goal and that includes less than a threshold number of steps or (ii) identifying at least one log of the one or more logs that includes a number of steps that is less than a specified percentile among a subset of the one or more logs that are related to a second particular goal.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Kulkarni teaches identifying the portion of the navigational information that satisfies the efficiency criterion comprises at least one of (i) identifying at least one log of the one or more logs that is related to a first particular goal and that includes less than a threshold number of steps or (ii) identifying at least one log of the one or more logs that includes a number of steps that is less than a specified percentile among a subset of the one or more logs that are related to a second particular goal (pars. 88-89 and 93-99, the system can determine predicted/candidate activity event based on information that includes identifying sequences of user activity events represented as LM scores falls below a threshold).
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 generating suggested navigation information based on the customer profile data records, as taught by Sotiriou, and to provide the way to identify a threshold number of activity events, as taught by Kulkarni. The motivation is to quickly increase prediction with identifying the limited number of activities, thereby enhancing the efficiency of the interaction.
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
Prosecution Insights