DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-16, 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-18, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,050,526 (reference patent). Although the Instant Application claims 1-16, 18-20 and Patent No. 12,050,526 claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-18, 20 at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as shown in the table below, Instant Application claims 1-16, 18-20 are anticipated by Patent No. 12,050,526 claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-18, 20.
Instant Application
18/784,690
U.S. Patent No. 12,050,526
1. A computer-implemented method for generating feedback for software executing on client devices, the method comprising:
Automatically storing, by a client device, within a context data structure, context information associated with one or more software applications
detecting, by the client device, one or more inputs indicating a request to generate a feedback log;
and in response to the one or more inputs: extracting, from the context data structure, a portion of the context information;
generating the feedback log that includes at least the portion of the context information; and transmitting the feedback log to a server machine.
1. A computer-implemented method for generating feedback logs for software applications executing on client devices, the method comprising:
querying an operating system for context information associated with a plurality of software applications executing on a client device;
storing the context information within a context data structure;
receiving a first instance of a predetermined set of inputs via an input device;
in response, generating a feedback log that is populated with at least a portion of the context information stored within the context data structure; and
transmitting the feedback log to a server machine.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising querying an operating system for the context information associated with the one or more software applications.
1. A computer-implemented method for generating feedback logs for software applications executing on client devices, the method comprising:
querying an operating system for context information associated with a plurality of software applications executing on a client device;
…
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the portion of the context information included in the feedback log includes context information that collected in a predetermined period before the one or more inputs indicated the request were detected.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the at least a portion of the context information populating the feedback log includes context information that was stored within the context data structure during a predetermined time period prior to receiving the first instance of the predetermined set of inputs.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the context information includes at least one of an application name, window title, an execution start time, or an execution stop time.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the context information includes, for each software application included in the plurality of software applications, at least one of an application name, window title, an execution start time, or an execution stop time.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the context information includes at least one command executed by at least one software application.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the context information includes, for each software application included in the plurality of software applications, a set of commands executed by the software application.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more software applications include at least a primary application and a secondary application that interact to perform a task.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of software applications includes at least a primary application and a secondary application that interact to perform a workflow task.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
assigning a first importance level to the feedback log based on a first input;
and upon receiving a second input following the first input,
assigning a second importance level to the feedback log.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to receiving the first instance of the predetermined set of inputs, assigning a first importance level to the feedback log;
receiving a second instance of the predetermined set of inputs via the input device; and
in response to receiving the second instance of the predetermined set of inputs, assigning a second importance level to the feedback log.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
assigning an importance level to the feedback log indicating that a log response has been requested for the feedback log; and
receiving the log response for the feedback log from the server machine.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
assigning an importance level to the feedback log that indicates that a log response has been requested for the feedback log; and
receiving the log response for the feedback log from the server machine.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising storing multimedia content in the feedback log, wherein the multimedia content comprises at least one of audio content, or video content.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising storing multimedia content to the feedback log, wherein the multimedia content comprises at least one of audio content, image content, or video content.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
storing the feedback log within a log archive; and
generating a user interface for interacting with and displaying the feedback log.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
storing the feedback log within a log archive that includes a plurality of feedback logs; and
generating a user interface for interacting with and displaying the plurality of feedback logs.
11. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:
Automatically storing, by a client device, within a context data structure, context information associated with one or more software applications;
detecting, by the client device, one or more inputs indicating a request to generate a feedback log;
and in response to the one or more inputs: extracting, from the context data structure, a portion of the context information;
generating the feedback log that includes at least the portion of the context information;
and transmitting the feedback log to a server machine.
11. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to … performing the steps of:
querying an operating system for context information associated with a plurality of software applications executing on a client device;
storing the context information within a context data structure;
receiving a first instance of a predetermined set of inputs via an input device;
in response, generating a feedback log that is populated with at least a portion of the context information stored within the context data structure;
and transmitting the feedback log to a server machine.
12. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, further comprising
querying an operating system for the context information associated with the one or more software applications.
11. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media …
querying an operating system for context information associated with a plurality of software applications executing on a client device; …
13. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 12, wherein the operating system and the one or more software applications execute on a first client machine.
11. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to generate feedback logs for software applications executing on client devices by performing the steps of:
querying an operating system for context information associated with a plurality of software applications executing on a client device;
…
14. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the portion of the context information included in the feedback log includes context information that collected in a predetermined period before the one or more inputs indicated the request were detected.
12. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the at least a portion of the context information populating the feedback log includes context information that was stored within the context data structure during a predetermined time period prior to receiving the first instance of the predetermined set of inputs.
15. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the context information includes at least one of an application name, window title, an execution start time, an execution stop time,
or at least one executed command.
13. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the context information includes, for each software application included in the plurality of software applications, at least one of an application name, window title, an execution start time, or an execution stop time.
Claim 14
16. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the one or more software applications include at least a primary application and a secondary application that interact to perform a task.
15. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the plurality of software applications includes at least a primary application and a secondary application that interact to perform a workflow task.
18. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, further comprising:
assigning an importance level to the feedback log indicating that a log response has been requested for the feedback log; and
receiving the log response for the feedback log from the server machine.
17. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, further comprising:
assigning an importance level to the feedback log that indicates that a log response has been requested for the feedback log; and
receiving the log response for the feedback log from the server machine.
19. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the one or more inputs comprises at least one of a cursor-based input, a desktop region-based input, a button-based input, a keyboard-based input, or a natural-based input.
18. The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the predetermined set of inputs comprises at least one of a cursor-based set of inputs, a desktop region-based set of inputs, a button-based set of inputs, a keyboard-based set of inputs, or a natural-based set of inputs.
20. A system, comprising:
one or more memories that store instructions; and
one or more processors that are coupled to the one or more memories and, upon executing the instructions, are configured to perform the steps of:
automatically storing, by a client device, within a context data structure, context information associated with one or more software applications;
detecting, by the client device, one or more inputs indicating a request to generate a feedback log;
and in response to the one or more inputs: extracting, from the context data structure, a portion of the context information;
generating the feedback log that includes at least the portion of the context information;
and transmitting the feedback log to a server machine.
20. A computing system comprising:
a memory that stores instructions; and
a processor that is coupled to the memory and, upon executing the instructions, performs the steps of:
querying an operating system for context information associated with a plurality of software applications executing on a client device;
storing the context information within a context data structure;
receiving a first instance of a predetermined set of inputs via an input device;
in response, generating a feedback log that is populated with at least a portion of the context information stored within the context data structure; and
transmitting the feedback log to a server machine.
With regards to double patenting of claims 1-16, 18-20 of the Instant Application, claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-18, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,050,526 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of Instant Application claims 1-16, 18-20. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and MPEP 806.04(i).
Although applicant amended claims to add limitations such as “automatically storing” and “detecting inputs”, “extracting information”, there additional limitations recite merely conventional, routine data-gathering, and processing functionalities that carry no patentable weight. Taken individually or as a whole, those generic computer steps do not render the mended claims patentably distinct over the reference patent. Therefore, the double patent rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims generally link abstract ideas to a generic computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they include mere instructions to perform mental processes on a generic computer without creating a significant improvement or change to the computer.
Claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
detecting, by the client device, one or more inputs indicating a request to generate a feedback log; (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process)
and in response to the one or more inputs: extracting, from the context data structure, a portion of the context information; (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process)
generating the feedback log that includes at least the portion of the context information; (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process)
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
A computer-implemented method for generating feedback for software executing on client devices, the method comprising: automatically storing, by a client device, within a context data structure, context information associated with one or more software applications (MPEP 2106.05(g): mere data gathering is an Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity)
and transmitting the feedback log to a server machine. (MPEP 2106.05(g): mere data gathering is an Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity)
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
The additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. (MPEG 2106.05(g))
Claim 2:
Claim 2 merely further describe the context information of claim 1, respectively
Claim 3:
Claim 3 merely further describe the context information of claim 1, respectively
Claim 4:
Claim 4 merely further describe the context information of claim 1, respectively
Claim 5:
Claim 5 merely further describe the context information of claim 1, respectively
Claim 6:
Claim 6 merely further describe the software applications of claim 1, respectively
Claim 7:
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning a first importance level to the feedback log based on a first input; (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process)
assigning a second importance level to the feedback log (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process)
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
and upon receiving a second input following the first input (MPEP 2106.05(g): mere data gathering is an Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity)
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
The additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. (MPEG 2106.05(g))
Claim 8:
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning an importance level to the feedback log indicating that a log response has been requested for the feedback log; (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process)
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
and receiving the log response for the feedback log from the server machine. (MPEP 2106.05(g): mere data gathering is an Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity)
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
The additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. (MPEG 2106.05(g))
Claim 9:
Claim 9 merely further describe the multimedia content of claim 1, respectively
Claim 10:
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
and generating a user interface for interacting with and displaying the feedback log. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” as mental process)
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: storing the feedback log within a log archive; (MPEP 2106.05(g): mere data gathering is an Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity)
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
The additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. (MPEG 2106.05(g))
Claim 11:
The media of claim 11 performs the same method steps as the method of claim 1, and claim 11 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 1
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
non-transitory computer-readable media (MPEP 2106.04(d): regarding, “simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle”)
processors (MPEP 2106.04(d): regarding, “simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle”)
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
The additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. (MPEG 2106.05(f))
Claim 12:
The media of claim 12 performs the same method steps as the method of claim 2, and claim 12 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 2
Claim 13:
Claim 13 merely further describe the operating system and the one or more software applications of claim 12, respectively
Claim 14-18:
The media of claims 14-18 performs the same method steps as the method of claims 3-4 and 6-8, and claims 14-18 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 3-4 and 6-8
Claim 19:
Claim 19 merely further describe one or more inputs of claim 11, respectively
Claim 20:
The system of claim 20 performs the same method steps as the method of claim 1, and claim 20 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 1
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
One or more memories (MPEP 2106.04(d): regarding, “simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle”)
One or more processors (MPEP 2106.04(d): regarding, “simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle”)
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
The additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. (MPEG 2106.05(f))
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ergan (US 20100229112 A1), in view of Kienzle (US 8910183 B2)
Regarding Claim 1, Ergan teaches:
A computer-implemented method for generating feedback for software executing on client devices, (Ergan, Abstract, Fig. 1 client user devices 110, paragraph 0036 “Alternatively or additionally, the tool may be used as part of an error reporting system that aggregates error reports from multiple user devices to identify problems with software or other components of those devices. In such an embodiment, reports of problems for multiple user devices may be aggregated on back end server 130.”)
generating the feedback log that includes at least the portion of the context information; (Ergan, paragraphs 0029-0030 “Upon occurrence of the stop event, the tool then creates a report containing an event record from recorded user interactions. …The user may review the report to provide annotations or ensure that any information the user does not wish to share has been removed by the tool [i.e. feedback log].” Paragraph 0068 teaches filtering of log information based on user input to generate the feedback log “only a subset of events associated with user interactions with user device 110 may be recorded in event log 235. In such an embodiment, logger 234 may implement a filtering function. The filtering may be based on session parameters or other suitable criteria. The criteria may be provided through user input”);
and transmitting the feedback log to a server machine. (Ergan, Figs. 1, 7A-7B, user device 110 performs client side process 750 shown in Fig. 7B that is shown in Fig. 7A as 720 . In Fig. 7B, the user device 110 Creates report 777 and Transmit report 778 to Fig. 7A Receive report 722. Fig. 7A blocks 722-728 occur on backend server 130. See description of Figures 7A-7B in paragraphs 0096-0118).
Ergan does not explicitly teach:
the method comprising: automatically storing, by a client device, within a context data structure, context information associated with one or more software applications
detecting, by the client device, one or more inputs indicating a request to generate a feedback log;
and in response to the one or more inputs: extracting, from the context data structure, a portion of the context information;
However, Kienzle teaches:
the method comprising: automatically storing, by a client device, within a context data structure, context information associated with one or more software applications (Kienzle, Fig. 1, Col. 3, line 10-13, In one exemplary embodiment, the heterogeneous application environment 100 can include a plurality of applications (e.g., applications A to D), which are communicatively coupled to a global context unit 110. Col. 3, line 39-44, In one exemplary operation, the global context unit 110 receives the context information of the source application (e.g., the particular room number, in which the electronic device is not working, is received from the source application). Further, the received context information is stored in the context vector of the global context unit 110. Examiner's note: 110 is attached to applications and stores their context information. Because 110 is a computer system integrated with these applications to collect this data, the system necessarily and inevitably executes this storage without human intervention. Therefore, the step of "automatically" storing is inherently disclosed.)
detecting, by the client device, one or more inputs indicating a request to generate a feedback log; (Kienzle, Col. 3, line 44-48, Furthermore, access to the stored context information is provided to the target application upon receiving invoking access indication (e.g., access to the particular room number is provided to the target application).)
and in response to the one or more inputs: extracting, from the context data structure, a portion of the context information; (Kienzle, Col. 4, line 43-52, In one exemplary embodiment, the target applications invoke access to the context information stored in the global context unit during execution commencement of the target applications. For example, when the target application invokes access to the context ID `Room_ID`, then the context information stored in the global context unit under `Room_ID` is provided to the target application. In one exemplary embodiment, invoking access to the context information stored in the global context unit is achieved by simple method `Get_Value`.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Ergan with global context unit setup as taught by Kienzle, because it is desirable to provide a method which enables integration of heterogeneous applications without any change in the architecture of the applications. (Kienzle, Col. 1, line 47-50)
Regarding Claim 2, Ergan in view of Kienzle teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising querying an operating system for the context information associated with the one or more software applications. (Ergan, Fig. 2, User Device Operating System 240 and paragraph 0046 “an operating system 240 on user device 110 may relate specific user actions in the context of the graphical user interface to specific functions.” Paragraph 0060 “ functions and other components within operating system 240 may be instrumented with event tracing function calls at entry and exit points of those components. The event tracing functions may, when called, record an event in an event stream. Such an event stream, therefore, provides information about the timing and order of events that occur during operating of user device 110.” See also paragraphs 0063-0065).
Regarding Claim 3, Ergan in view of Kienzle teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the portion of the context information included in the feedback log includes context information that collected in a predetermined period before the one or more inputs indicated the request were detected. (Ergan, paragraphs 0063-0067, paragraph 0066 teaches “until completion of the recording session.” Paragraph 0067 teaches different recording scenarios that requires logging information to be stored in event log for a period of time. Fig. 7B, block 775 shows “Record to event log” that continues to record new events in loop for No selection in block 776 so context information is stored in context data structure for at least a predetermined amount of time. Kienzle, Fig. 2, 220 -> 230. Examiner's note: In Kienzle, context information is already stored in step 220 before the invoking request triggers in step 230 )
Regarding Claim 4, Ergan in view of Kienzle teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the context information includes at least one of an application name, window title, an execution start time, or an execution stop time. (Ergan, paragraph 0063-0065 teaches application name “Notepad” and see also Fig. 4A and description of Fig. 4A, paragraphs 0088-0090).
Regarding Claim 5, Ergan in view of Kienzle teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the context information includes at least one command executed by at least one software application. (Ergan, paragraph 0029 “The tool records user interactions, including input events such as mouse and keyboard commands and metadata about the objects within a graphical user interface with which these interactions occur.” Paragraph 0061 “a mouse click in the context of a user interface may indicate a user selection of a specific command to be performed by an executing application program.”)
Regarding Claim 6, Ergan in view of Kienzle teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more software applications include at least a primary application and a secondary application that interact to perform a task. (Ergan, Fig. 2, Operating System 240 [i.e. primary application] executes applications 250 [i.e. secondary application that interact to perform a task] as taught in paragraphs 0048-0049).
Regarding Claim 7, Ergan in view of Kienzle teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning a first importance level to the feedback log based on a first input; (Ergan, paragraphs 0068 teaches “logger 234 may implement a filtering function. The filtering may be based on … suitable criteria. The criteria may be provided through user input [i.e. first input] …. Regardless of the specific filtering criteria used…, information on events meeting the criteria [i.e. criteria is first importance level] is stored in event log 235.” See also paragraph 0133 “statistically significant …patterns of user interactions leading up to the user experiencing the particular problem type may be identified.”)
and upon receiving a second input following the first input, assigning a second importance level to the feedback log (Ergan, [0069] The recording tool 230 further includes a compressor component 236 for compressing and processing the event log 235 to create a UI event file 237 and, in some scenarios a report. The compressor 236 may apply the filtering instructions from the session parameters to determine which event records are to be extracted from the event log 235 and stored in event file 237.)
Regarding Claim 8, Ergan in view of Kienzle teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning an importance level to the feedback log indicating that a log response has been requested for the feedback log; (Ergan, paragraph 0068 [i.e. importance level] and paragraphs 0030-0031 “The report may then be analyzed and/or shared with a technical support staff or others who may be able to help the user identify and solve the problem encountered. Alternatively or additionally, the report may be sent to a server where it is analyzed in connection with other reports received from other users.”);
and receiving the log response for the feedback log from the server machine. (Ergan, paragraph 0031 “Having identified the problem, the back end server may then search an appropriate database for a solution to the problem. After a solution is identified it may be provided to the user.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Ergan in view of Kienzle teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: storing the feedback log within a log archive; (Ergan, paragraphs Fig. 8, database 810 and Fig. 9, paragraphs 0135-0138 “Receive reports” 902, “Aggregate reports” 904, “Detect patterns” 906 “Update database” 908 );
and generating a user interface for interacting with and displaying the feedback log. (Ergan, paragraphs 0081-0083 “UI event file may be reviewed by a user. The recording tool may display the UI event file in a graphical user interface (GUI) that enables the user to ensure that any personal information which the user does not wish to share has been removed. Additionally, the user may wish to provide additional comments and annotations to the UI event file. … The user may add general annotations explaining what the user was trying to accomplish when performing the sequence of user interactions.”)
Regarding Claim 11,
The media of claim 11 performs the same method steps as the method of claim 1, and claim 11 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 1
Ergan in view of Kienzle further teaches:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions that, (Ergan, paragraph 0044 “Memory 204 may be any suitable type of computer readable storage medium such as, for example and not limitation, RAM…floppy disks, …volatile and non-volatile memory devices …or other tangible computer storage medium.”)
Regarding Claim 12,
The media of claim 12 performs the same method steps as the method of claim 2, and claim 12 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 2
Regarding Claim 13, Ergan in view of Kienzle teaches:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 12, wherein the operating system and the one or more software applications execute on a first client machine. (Ergan, Fig. 2, Operating system 240 and Applications 250 execute on user device 110).
Regarding Claims 14-18,
The media of claims 14-18 performs the same method steps as the method of claims 3-4 and 6-8, and claims 14-18 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 3-4 and 6-8
Regarding Claim 19, Ergan in view of Kienzle teaches:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, wherein the one or more inputs comprises at least one of a cursor-based input, a desktop region-based input, a button-based input, a keyboard-based input, or a natural-based input. (Ergan, paragraph 0029 “The tool records user interactions, including input events such as mouse and keyboard commands and metadata about the objects within a graphical user interface with which these interactions occur.” Paragraph 0061 “the event stream can indicate that a user activated a control button on a mouse …a mouse click in the context of a user interface may indicate a user selection of a specific command to be performed by an executing application program.”).
Regarding Claim 20,
The system of claim 20 performs the same method steps as the method of claim 1, and claim 20 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 1
Ergan in view of Kienzle further teaches:
A system (Ergan, Abstract, Figs. 1-2), comprising: one or more memories that store instructions; (Ergan, paragraph 0044 “Memory 204 may be any suitable type of computer readable storage medium such as, for example and not limitation, RAM…floppy disks, …volatile and non-volatile memory devices …or other tangible computer storage medium.”)
and one or more processors that are coupled to the one or more memories and, (Ergan, paragraph 0044 “Memory 204 may store software modules that when executed by processor 202 perform a desired function.”)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ergan (US 20100229112 A1), in view of Kienzle (US 8910183 B2) and GOTOH (US 20180341982 A1)
Regarding Claim 9, Ergan in view of Kienzle does not explicitly teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising storing multimedia content in the feedback log, wherein the multimedia content comprises at least one of audio content, or video content.
However, GOTOH teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising storing multimedia content in the feedback log, wherein the multimedia content comprises at least one of audio content, or video content. (GOTOH, [0050] The playback history/feedback storage control unit 10g performs control such that the sound source (sound content), the audio output of which is performed by the audio output control unit 10f, is stored in the storage unit 17 as a history (playback log). Further, the playback history/feedback storage control unit 10g performs control such that reactions of the user, for example, turning his/her face in the direction of a voice, stopping and listening to a talk, and nodding when audio output is performed by the audio output control unit 10f, are stored as feedback in the storage unit 17.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Ergan in view of Kienzle with storing audio output into log as taught by GOTOH, so In this manner, the control unit 10 can learn the user's preference, and can select a mission or an advertised product corresponding to the user's preference in the above-mentioned virtual character action decision unit 10b. (GOTOH, [0050])
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s requests, filed 04/24/2026, to hold the non-statutory double patenting rejection in abeyance pending the filing of a terminal disclaimer has been considered. However, because a compliant terminal disclaimer under 37 CFR 1.321 has not yet been entered, and because applicant did not traverse the merits of the distinctness analysis, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims and/or claim limitations are directed to mental processes which can be performed by a human mind, such as “detecting inputs”, “extracting context information”, “generating feedback log”, with or without the help of ai models. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B), A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process) . The additional elements are mere data gathering, such as “automatically storing context information”, “transmitting feedback log”, in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. (MPEG 2106.05(g)) Please see 101 rejection section above
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found art reference(s). (See 103 rejection section above)
Conclusion
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 XINYUAN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-7140. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/XINYUAN YU/Examiner, Art Unit 2113
/PHILIP GUYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights