DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosures of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 63/487788 and Application No. 18/593611, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The identified prior-filed applications do not provide adequate support for claim 1-20 of this application. For example, the prior-filed applications fail to provide adequate support for at least the identify/identifying, recreate/recreating, and overlay/overlaying limitations in each of independent claims 1, 11, and 17.
4. Accordingly, claims 1-20 in this application are afforded an effective filing date of 7/26/2024 which is the day on which the application was filed as a CIP application with added subject matter supporting the subject matter of claims 1-20.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The IDS’s filed 9/26/2024 and 9/29/2025 are considered.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites “Non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, that one executed by one or more electronic processors, performs a set of functions…”. There are minor grammatical issues with this limitation, and appears as though it should recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, that when executed by one or more electronic processors, performs a set of functions…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
7. Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeGangi et al. (US 2019/0146807 A1) and further in view of Eo et al. (US 2025/0111339 A1).
In regard to claim 1, DeGangi discloses a system for generating a record of a digital interaction, the system comprising:
a server (Fig. 1 element 150);
and an electronic communications device communicatively coupled to the server, the electronic communications device including: a display, a first electronic processor configured to (Fig. 1 element 100 and Paragraph 0017):
present content within a user interface provided via the display (Paragraph 0026 lines 1-6: web page displayed to the user at user client device);
create a timeline map storing a plurality of timestamps, each of the plurality of timestamps associated with an identifier of an event associated with the content presented within the user interface (Paragraph 0032, Paragraph 0033, Paragraph 0034 lines 1-3, and Paragraph 0041 lines 9-12: page state including page events with associated timestamps);
and transmit the timeline map to the server, the server including a second electronic processor configured to (Paragraph 0034 lines 1-3 and Paragraph 0054 lines 10-11):
identify, based on the timeline map, the content presented within the user interface (Paragraph 0032 lines 5-7, Paragraph 0040, and Paragraph 0041: uses original page state of web page which identifies the web page),
identify, based on the timeline map, a timing of the content presented within the user interface (Paragraph 0041: uses stored timestamps associated with the page events to recreate),
and recreate, using the content and the timing of the content, a screen recording of the user interface provided via the display (Paragraph 0042 and Paragraph 0045: web page is recreated based on the page events).
While DeGangi teaches the server, the electronic communications device, and recreate, using the content and the timing of the content, a screen recording of the user interface provided via the display, they fail to show a camera, generate a recording based on image data captured via the camera, transmit the recording to the server, and overlay the recording on the recreated screen recording aligned with the timing of the content, as recited in the claims. Eo teaches recreating a screen recording of a user interface similar to that of DeGangi. In addition, Eo further teaches
generate a recording based on image data captured via a camera of an electronic communications device, transmit the recording to a sever, and overlay the recording on a recreated screen recording aligned with timing of content (Paragraph 0014, Paragraph 0098, Paragraph 0099, Paragraph 0104, Paragraph 0105, Paragraph 0108, and Paragraph 0109: image of viewer of viewer user terminal is captured, stored together with a history record in a server, and provided for display as overlay at the capture time when the history is played back).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of DeGangi and Eo before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify DeGangi to include the generate a recording based on image data captured via a camera of an electronic communications device, transmit the recording to a sever, and overlay the recording on a recreated screen recording aligned with timing of content of Eo, in order to obtain the electronic communications device including: a display, a camera, a first electronic processor, generate a recording based on image data captured via the camera, transmit the recording and the timeline map to the server, and overlay the recording on the recreated screen recording aligned with the timing of the content. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as confirming the users identity would have been obtained, as suggested by Eo (Paragraph 0109 lines 4-5).
In regard to claim 2, DeGangi discloses wherein the user interface is provided with a web page accessed via a browser application installed on the electronic communications device (Paragraph 0049 lines 6-9).
In regard to claim 3, DeGangi discloses wherein the electronic communications device is a mobile device (Paragraph 0017 lines 1-6).
In regard to claim 4, DeGangi discloses wherein the second electronic processor is further configured to stream the content to the electronic communications device (Paragraph 0041, Paragraph 0042, Paragraph 0045, and Paragraph 0046: the content is recreated and displayed to the viewer from the server).
In regard to claim 5, Eo further discloses identifier of an event including starting of recording (Paragraph 0108 lines 6-8: the capture time can be considered to include starting of recording). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the identifier of the event includes an identifier of a starting of the recording. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as confirming the user’s identity would have been obtained, as suggested by Eo (Paragraph 0109 lines 4-5).
In regard to claim 6, Eo further discloses identifier of an event including ending of recording (Paragraph 0108 lines 6-8: the capture time can be considered to include ending of recording (e.g. the capture time of a single image could be both the starting and ending of recording). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the identifier of the event includes an identifier of a ending of the recording. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as confirming the user’s identity would have been obtained, as suggested by Eo (Paragraph 0109 lines 4-5).
In regard to claim 7, DeGangi discloses wherein the identifier of the event includes an identifier of at least one selected from a group consisting of presentation of pre-recorded content, presentation of a selection mechanism, presentation of text, and unlocking of a selection mechanism (Paragraph 0033).
In regard to claim 8, DeGangi discloses wherein the identifier of the event includes an identifier of a selection of a presented selection mechanism (Paragraph 0033).
In regard to claim 11, DeGangi discloses a computer-implemented method of generating a record of a digital interaction conducted via a user device, the method comprising:
receiving, at a computing device, a timeline map storing a plurality of timestamps, each of the plurality of timestamps associated with an identifier of an event occurring at the user device (Paragraph 0032, Paragraph 0033, Paragraph 0034 lines 1-3, and Paragraph 0041 lines 9-12: page state including page events with associated timestamps);
identifying, at the computing device, content presented on a display of the user device based on the timeline map (Paragraph 0032 lines 5-7, Paragraph 0040, and Paragraph 0041: uses original page state of web page which identifies the web page);
identifying, at the computing device, a timing of the content presented on the display of the user device based on the timeline map (Paragraph 0041: uses stored timestamps associated with the page events to recreate);
and recreating, at the computing device, a screen recording using the content and the timing of the content (Paragraph 0042 and Paragraph 0045: web page is recreated based on the page events).
While DeGangi teaches recreating, at the computing device, a screen recording using the content and the timing of the content, they fail to show the receiving, at a computing device, a recording captured via the user device and overlaying, at the computing device, the recording on the recreated screen recording aligned with the timing of the content, as recited in the claims. Eo teaches recreating a screen recording similar to that of DeGangi. In addition, Eo further teaches
receiving a recording captured via a user device (Paragraph 0098, Paragraph 0099, and Paragraph 0108: appearance of viewer is captured with a front camera of the viewers device);
and overlaying the recording on a recreated screen recording aligned with timing of content (Paragraph 0014, Paragraph 0105, and Paragraph 0109: the image data captured is overlayed at the capture time when history is played back (e.g. recreated)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of DeGangi and Eo before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the recreating, at the computing device, a screen recording using the content and the timing of the content taught by DeGangi to include the receiving a recording captured via a user device and overlaying the recording on a recreated screen recording aligned with timing of content of Eo, in order to obtain receiving, at a computing device, a recording captured via the user device and overlaying, at the computing device, the recording on the recreated screen recording aligned with the timing of the content. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as confirming the user’s identity would have been obtained, as suggested by Eo (Paragraph 0109 lines 4-5).
In regard to claim 12, Eo further discloses wherein the recording includes at least one of an image recording captured via a camera of a user device and audio recording captured via a microphone of the user device (Paragraph 0098, Paragraph 0099, Paragraph 0108, and Paragraph 0111 lines 9-11). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the recording includes at least one of an image recording captured via a camera of the user device and audio recording captured via a microphone of the user device. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as confirming the user’s identity would have been obtained, as suggested by Eo (Paragraph 0109 lines 4-5).
In regard to claim 13, DeGangi discloses wherein the digital interaction is conducted within a browser application and wherein the user device is a mobile device (Paragraph 0017 lines 1-6 and Paragraph 0049 lines 6-9).
In regard to claim 14, Eo further discloses identifier of an event including starting/ending of recording (Paragraph 0108 lines 6-8: the capture time can be considered to include starting and/or ending of recording). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the identifier of the event occurring at the user device includes an identifier of at least one selected from a group consisting of a starting of the recording and an ending of the recording. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as confirming the user’s identity would have been obtained, as suggested by Eo (Paragraph 0109 lines 4-5).
In regard to claim 15, DeGangi discloses wherein the identifier of the event occurring at the user device includes an identifier of at least one selected from a group consisting of presentation of pre-recorded content, presentation of a selection mechanism, presentation of text, and unlocking of a selection mechanism (Paragraph 0033).
In regard to claim 16, DeGangi discloses wherein the identifier of the event occurring at the user device includes an identifier of a selection of a presented selection mechanism (Paragraph 0033).
In regard to claim 17, medium claim 17 corresponds generally to method claims 11-13 and recites similar features in medium form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale. The rejections of claims 11, 12, and 13 are incorporated herein in their entirety.
In regard to claim 18, DeGangi discloses wherein the identifier of the event occurring at the mobile device includes an identifier of at least one selected from a group consisting of presentation of pre-recorded content, presentation of a selection mechanism, presentation of text, unlocking of a selection mechanism, and a selection of a presented selection mechanism (Paragraph 0033).
In regard to claim 19, DeGangi discloses wherein identifier of the event occurring at the mobile device includes an identifier of content displayed within a browser application accessing a web page (Paragraph 0032 lines 5-6 and Paragraph 0049 lines 6-9).
8. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeGangi et al. (US 2019/0146807 A1), Eo et al. (US 2025/0111339 A1), and further in view of Reilly (US 2019/0050549 A1).
In regard to claim 9, while the combination of DeGangi and Eo teaches the recording to provide the advantage for confirming the user’s identity (The Rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein in its entirety), they fail to show the video file, as recited in the claims. Reilly teaches user identity similar to that of the combination of DeGangi and Eo. In addition, Reilly further teaches
video of the user for user identity (Paragraph 0063).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of DeGangi, Eo, and Reilly before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the recording taught by the combination of DeGangi and Eo to include the video of the user of Reilly, in order to obtain wherein the recording is a video file. One would have been motivated to make such a combination as a simple substitution to obtain predictable results. Simply substituting the recording of image data taught by the combination of DeGangi and Eo with the video of Reilly, would predictable result in a recording to provide the advantage for confirming the user’s identity.
9. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeGangi et al. (US 2019/0146807 A1), Eo et al. (US 2025/0111339 A1), and further in view of Agarwal et al. (US 2025/0321767 A1).
In regard to claim 10, while the combination of DeGangi and Eo teaches the timeline map, they fail to show the JSON file as recited in the claims. Agarwal teaches a timeline map (e.g. replay data) similar to that of the combination of DeGangi and Eo. In addition, Agarwal further teaches
storing replay data as a JSON string (Paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of DeGangi, Eo, and Agarwal before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the timeline map taught by the combination of DeGangi and Eo to include the storing replay data as a JSON string of Agarwal, in order to obtain wherein the timeline map is a JSON file. One would have been motivated to make such a combination as storing the data in a compressed format for export would have been obtained, as suggested by Agarwal (Paragraph 0035 lines 15-18).
10. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeGangi et al. (US 2019/0146807 A1), Eo et al. (US 2025/0111339 A1), and further in view of Goel et al. (US 11785282 B1).
Note: The limitation “for access via an administrative device” in claim 20 is interpreted as an ‘intended use’ that does not limit the scope of the claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation, see MPEP 2103.
In regard to claim 20, while the combination of DeGangi and Eo teaches the set of functions, recreating a screen recording using the content and the timing of the content; overlaying the recording on the recreated screen recording aligned with the timing of the content, and further teaches a user interface replaying a session to a viewer (Paragraph 0045 lines 1-2), they fail to show the wherein the set of functions further includes storing the recreated screen recording with the overlaid recording for access via an administrator device, as recited in the claims. Goel teaches screen recording similar to that of the combination of DeGangi and Eo. In addition, Goel further teaches
recording the screen of a user device through a communication channel and store the recording into permanent storage for making the recording accessible to one or more viewers (Column 16 line 63 – Column 17 line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of DeGangi, Eo, and Goel before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the set of functions and a user interface replaying a session to a viewer taught by the combination of DeGangi and Eo to include the recording the screen of a user device through a communication channel and store the recording into permanent storage for making the recording accessible to one or more viewers of Goel, in order to obtain wherein the set of functions further includes storing the recreated screen recording with the overlaid recording for access via an administrator device. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as instantaneous asynchronous media sharing would have been obtained, as suggested by Goel (Column 16 lines 63-64).
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eo et al. (US 2026/0003562 A1), see at least the abstract and Paragraphs 0113-0127.
Cartan et al. (US 11669347 B2), see at least the abstract.
Wu (US 2019/0347317 A1), see at least the abstract.
Lee et al. (US 2019/0043069 A1), see at least Paragraphs 0034-0035.
Mayer-Ullman (US 7827486 B2), see at least the abstract.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
13. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights