DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to the Amendment for Application Number 18790471 received on 1/12/2026.
Claims 52-67 are newly presented for examination.
Claims 1-51 have been cancelled.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 53, 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 53 and 61 each recite the limitation "an application programming interface (API)" in line 2. As their corresponding base claims 52 and 60 already recite “an application programming interface (API), there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 55 and 63 each recite the limitation, “wherein upon receiving the control transfer request or the relinquishment from the first device, the processor is further configured to: perform the real-time in-page transfer of the navigational control of the content within the simulated browsing session from the first device to the second device.”
However, claims 55 and 63 are dependent from claims 52 and 60 respectively, which do not recite “a control transfer request” or “a relinquishment”. As such there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claims.
For examination purposes, claims 55 and 63 will be interpreted to depend from claims 53 and 61 respectively.
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) 52, 56-57, 60, 64-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisztrai et al. (US 20210075832) in view of Durairaj et al. (US 20240039873).
Regarding claim 52, Bisztrai disclosed a system for providing a simulated browsing session, the system comprising:
a cloud browser (Bisztrai, [0032] “co-browsing through use of a cloud-based browser that is shared by the participants”);
an encoder (Bisztrai, [0047] Bisztrai disclosed the cloud browser creating and encoding raw/frame data into a stream of frames for streaming to the clients); and
a processor (Bisztrai, [0023], “one or more processors”) configured to:
receive, from the first device, data identifying an online action (Bisztrai, [0032], “user actions (e.g., clicks, taps, gestures, etc.) and executing them in the cloud browser as if the respective user is present in front of the cloud browser”; [0042], “During the session both participants can navigate the website (e.g., click and scroll)”);
execute, using the cloud browser, the online action to generate a result (Bisztrai, [0032], “user actions (e.g., clicks, taps, gestures, etc.) and executing them in the cloud browser as if the respective user is present in front of the cloud browser”; [0042], “During the session both participants can navigate the website (e.g., click and scroll)”; [0043] “Throughout the co-browse session, the images rendered in the respective local browsers are actually those obtained by the cloud browser and streamed back to the respective endpoints”);
encode, using the encoder, the result of executing the online action to generate an encoded stream (Bisztrai, [0043], “Throughout the co-browse session, the images rendered in the respective local browsers are actually those obtained by the cloud browser and streamed back to the respective endpoints”; [0047] Bisztrai disclosed the cloud browser creating and encoding raw/frame data into a stream of frames for streaming to the clients using particular streaming protocols); and
contemporaneously provide the encoded stream to the first device and a second device (Bisztrai, [0043], “Throughout the co-browse session, the images rendered in the respective local browsers are actually those obtained by the cloud browser and streamed back to the respective endpoints”; [0047] Bisztrai disclosed the cloud browser creating and encoding raw/frame data into a stream of frames for streaming to the clients using particular streaming protocols, and also disclosed real-time streaming to the clients).
Bisztrai did not explicitly disclose an application programming interface (API); nor did Biztrai disclose select[ing], based on the online action, one or both of the cloud browser or the API for executing the online action.
Durairaj disclosed an application programming interface (API) (Durairaj, [0065]); and select[ing], based on the online action, one or both of the cloud browser or the API for executing the online action (Durairaj, [0066]-[0068] Durairaj disclosed users interacting with the system through various ways; [0069] Durairaj disclosed utilization of an API to identify the user’s intent based on the interaction between the user and the chat bot, and as described below, may provide the user with an option for an automated co-browsing session based on the user intent; [0070], The system 100 may retrieve and execute a co-browse script 108 based on the user's intent as determined via the intent classification API 106; Therefore, the teachings of Durairaj select one or both of an API and cloud browser based on the online action for execution of the online action; In an additional embodiment, at [0011] and [0064], Durairaj additionally disclosed determining whether data indicative of an incomplete co-browse session is stored in association with the user in response to initiating the interaction between the user and the chat bot, and retrieving an intent configuration file associated with the co-browse session from an intent configuration data store 110, and [0152]-[0153] if the file exists, the chat bot performs the actions of the file to perform the co-browse session, and if no intent configuration file is stored, the chat bot routes the interaction to an agent to handle the co-browse session; Durairaj details in [0119] that media augmentation system 316 handles how the portions of cloud-based system 300 interact with each other, and is embodied as or includes an API; As such, it is evident that Durairaj’s interaction between the different components by media augmentation system 316, includes utilization of an API; For example, upon determination that the file exists, the chat bot interacting with other components would require use of the media augmentation system’s API; See also [0070] in which Durairaj disclosed the various actions to be executed by the chatbot such as “ mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and/or other actions”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bisztrai and Durairaj as they both provide teachings for co-browsing sessions, and as such they are within similar environments.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Durairaj within Bisztrai to allow for additional ways for handling a co-browse session depending on the user’s needs (Durairaj, [0145]-[0146]), thereby increasing desirability of use by its customers.
Regarding claim 60, Bisztrai disclosed a method for use by a system for providing a simulated browsing session, the system including
a cloud browser (Bisztrai, [0032] “co-browsing through use of a cloud-based browser that is shared by the participants”), and
an encoder (Bisztrai, [0047] Bisztrai disclosed the cloud browser creating and encoding raw/frame data into a stream of frames for streaming to the clients),
the method comprising:
receiving, from a first device, data identifying an online action (Bisztrai, [0032], “user actions (e.g., clicks, taps, gestures, etc.) and executing them in the cloud browser as if the respective user is present in front of the cloud browser”; [0042], “During the session both participants can navigate the website (e.g., click and scroll)”);
executing, using the cloud browser, the online action to generate a result (e.g., clicks, taps, gestures, etc.) and executing them in the cloud browser as if the respective user is present in front of the cloud browser”; [0042], “During the session both participants can navigate the website (e.g., click and scroll)”; [0043] “Throughout the co-browse session, the images rendered in the respective local browsers are actually those obtained by the cloud browser and streamed back to the respective endpoints”);
encoding, using the encoder, the result of executing the online action to generate an encoded stream (Bisztrai, [0043], “Throughout the co-browse session, the images rendered in the respective local browsers are actually those obtained by the cloud browser and streamed back to the respective endpoints”; [0047] Bisztrai disclosed the cloud browser creating and encoding raw/frame data into a stream of frames for streaming to the clients using particular streaming protocols); and
contemporaneously providing the encoded stream to the first device and a second device (Bisztrai, [0043], “Throughout the co-browse session, the images rendered in the respective local browsers are actually those obtained by the cloud browser and streamed back to the respective endpoints”; [0047] Bisztrai disclosed the cloud browser creating and encoding raw/frame data into a stream of frames for streaming to the clients using particular streaming protocols, and also disclosed real-time streaming to the clients).
Bisztrai did not explicitly disclose an application programming interface (API); and select[ing], based on the online action, one or both of the cloud browser or the API for executing the online action.
Durairaj disclosed an application programming interface (API) (Durairaj, [0065]); and select[ing], based on the online action, one or both of the cloud browser or the API for executing the online action (Durairaj, [0066]-[0068] Durairaj disclosed users interacting with the system through various ways; [0069] Durairaj disclosed utilization of an API to identify the user’s intent based on the interaction between the user and the chat bot, and as described below, may provide the user with an option for an automated co-browsing session based on the user intent; [0070], The system 100 may retrieve and execute a co-browse script 108 based on the user's intent as determined via the intent classification API 106; Therefore, the teachings of Durairaj select one or both of an API and cloud browser based on the online action for execution of the online action; In an additional embodiment, at [0011] and [0064], Durairaj additionally disclosed determining whether data indicative of an incomplete co-browse session is stored in association with the user in response to initiating the interaction between the user and the chat bot, and retrieving an intent configuration file associated with the co-browse session from an intent configuration data store 110, and [0152]-[0153] if the file exists, the chat bot performs the actions of the file to perform the co-browse session, and if no intent configuration file is stored, the chat bot routes the interaction to an agent to handle the co-browse session; Durairaj details in [0119] that media augmentation system 316 handles how the portions of cloud-based system 300 interact with each other, and is embodied as or includes an API; As such, it is evident that Durairaj’s interaction between the different components by media augmentation system 316, includes utilization of an API; For example, upon determination that the file exists, the chat bot interacting with other components would require use of the media augmentation system’s API; See also [0070] in which Durairaj disclosed the various actions to be executed by the chatbot such as “ mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and/or other actions”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bisztrai and Durairaj as they both provide teachings for co-browsing sessions, and as such they are within similar environments.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Durairaj within Bisztrai to allow for additional ways for handling a co-browse session depending on the user’s needs (Durairaj, [0145]-[0146]), thereby increasing desirability of use by its customers.
Regarding claims 56 and 64, Bisztrai and Durairaj disclosed the system of claim 52 and method of claim 60, wherein the cloud browser is located remotely with respect to the first device (Bisztrai, [0032], “cloud-based browser that is shared by the participants”, “the cloud-based browser is made available by a service provider”).
Regarding claims 57 and 65, Bisztrai and Durairaj disclosed the system of claim 56 and method of claim 64, wherein the cloud browser communicates over a wide area network with the first device (Bisztrai, [0002], “Internet-accessible architecture, implements as Web- or cloud-based service; See also Fig. 1-2, [0023], [0035], and [0044] showing communication over Internet).
Claim(s) 53, 55, 61, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisztrai et al. (US 20210075832) in view of Durairaj et al. (US 20240039873) and further in view of Anand et al. (US 20200226953).
Regarding claims 53 and 61, Bisztrai and Durairaj disclosed the system of claim 52, wherein the system further comprises a server that includes the cloud browser, an application programming interface (API), the encoder and the processor (Bisztrai, [0026], “the techniques described herein are provided using a set of one or more computing-related entities (systems, machines, processes, programs, libraries, functions, or the like) that together facilitate or provide the described functionality”; [0035], cloud-based browser 308 is a headless browser, and “ the headless browsers execute in one or more application servers”; [0047] Bisztrai disclosed the cloud browser creating and encoding raw/frame data into a stream of frames for streaming to the clients; [0020] co-browse service utilizes API; [0023], representative machine on which the web server executes includes commodity hardware such as a processor; Bisztrai therefore provides an embodiment in which the system may amount to a server having all of these components).
Bisztrai additionally disclosed “Remote-control” and “the agent is required to ask for explicit customer permission to control the browsing session, and without which the agent can only view the session and guide the customer” (Bisztrai, [0038]).
While it is evident that Bisztrai in view of Durairaj suggest the concept of providing navigational control of content during the browsing session, Bisztai and Durairaj did not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to enable a real-time in-page transfer of a navigational control of content within the simulated browsing session from the first device to the second device in response to (i) a control transfer request to the second device that is received from the first device; or (ii) a relinquishment of the navigational control of the content within the simulated browsing session by the first device.
In an analogous art, Anand disclosed wherein the processor is further configured to enable a real-time in-page transfer of a navigational control of content within the simulated browsing session from the first device to the second device in response to (i) a control transfer request to the second device that is received from the first device; or (ii) a relinquishment of the navigational control of the content within the simulated browsing session by the first device (Anand, With respect to cobrowsing sessions, Anand at [0042]-[0043], disclosed, “The user of the user communication device 101A the selects the relinquish control button 303. This causes a message to be displayed on the user communication device 101B that the user of the user communication device 101B is now in control.”).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Anand with the combined teachings of Bisztai and Durairaj as they both disclosed teachings with respect to shared browsing and as such they are within similar environments. Furthermore, as Bisztai in view of Durairaj suggest the concept of navigational control, such would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to apply related techniques, such as the techniques provided by Anand.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the specific techniques for passing navigational control of the browsing session, as disclosed by Anand, within the teachings of Bisztai and Durairaj in order to provide additional features that facilitate such control passing between users as they feel the need, thereby making the system more desirable to use by its customers.
Regarding claims 55 and 63, Bisztrai Durairaj and Anand disclosed the system of claim 53 and method of claim 61 the relinquishment from the first device, the processor is further configured to: perform the real-time in-page transfer of the navigational control of the content within the simulated browsing session from the first device to the second device (Anand, With respect to cobrowsing sessions, Anand at [0042]-[0043], disclosed, “The user of the user communication device 101A the selects the relinquish control button 303. This causes a message to be displayed on the user communication device 101B that the user of the user communication device 101B is now in control.”).
Claim(s) 58-59 and 66-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisztrai et al. (US 20210075832) in view of Durairaj et al. (US 20240039873) and further in view of Sasaki (US 20240160830).
Regarding claims 58 and 66, Bisztrai and Durairaj disclosed the system of claim 52 and method of claim 60, but did not explicitly disclose wherein the cloud browser is located locally with respect to the first device.
In an analogous art, Sasaki disclosed wherein the cloud browser is located locally with respect to the first device (Sasaki, Fig. 1, [0020], Sasaki disclosed embodiments where a cloud browser is located locally with respect to an equivalent first device, by disclosing that the network of Fig. 1 to include the embodiment of a local area network (LAN)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Sasaki with the combined teachings of Bisztrai and Durairaj, as they both involve the utilization of a cloud browser and as such they are within similar environments.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the utilization of a local area network, as disclosed by Sasaki, as the network within the combined teachings of Bisztrai and Durairaj as doing so increases scalability of the system, thereby increasing customer desirability of use.
Regarding claims 59 and 67, Bisztrai, Durairaj and Sasaki disclosed the system of claim 58 and method of claim 66, wherein the cloud browser is in local communication with the first device (Sasaki, Fig. 1, [0020], Sasaki disclosed embodiments where a cloud browser is located locally with respect to an equivalent first device, by disclosing that the network of Fig. 1 to include the embodiment of a local area network (LAN). The devices of Fig 1 are therefor in local communication). See motivation to combine above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 54 and 62 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 54 and 62, the closest cited prior art of record, Bisztrai and Durairaj disclosed the system of claim 52 and method of claim 60, but did not explicitly disclose wherein the first device is one of a plurality of first devices that are jointly in the navigational control of the content within the simulated browsing session, wherein the data identifying the online action describes a most recent online action that is executed by any one of the plurality of first devices, and wherein the processor is configured to: enable the real-time in-page transfer of the navigational control of the content within the simulated browsing session from the plurality of first devices to the second device in response to (i) the control transfer request to the second device received from any one of the plurality of first devices or in response to an affirmative action by any one of the plurality of first devices; or (ii) a relinquishment of the navigational control of the content within the simulated browsing session by any one of the plurality of first devices.
Anand et al. (US 20200226953) disclosed, with respect to cobrowsing sessions, “The user of the user communication device 101A the selects the relinquish control button 303. This causes a message to be displayed on the user communication device 101B that the user of the user communication device 101B is now in control.” (Anand at [0042]-[0043]). However, such does not teach or suggest that which is claimed. Claims 54 and 62 require enabling the real-time in-page transfer of the navigational control of the content within the simulated browsing session from a plurality of first devices to the second device in response to (i) the control transfer request to the second device received from any one of the plurality of first devices or in response to an affirmative action by any one of the plurality of first devices; or (ii) a relinquishment of the navigational control of the content within the simulated browsing session by any one of the plurality of first devices. That is, a control transfer request, or relinquishment of navigational control from any one of the plurality of devices causes enabling the real-time in-page transfer of navigational control of the content within the simulated browsing session from the plurality of first devices, which is not taught or suggested by the combined teachings or Anand.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/12/2026 are deemed moot in view of the following new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims which significantly affected the scope thereof (i.e., by cancelling all previous claims and incorporating entirely new claims, which require further search and consideration).
It is the Examiner’s position that Applicant has not yet submitted claims drawn to limitations, which define the operation and apparatus of Applicant’s disclosed invention in manner, which distinguishes over the prior art.
Failure for Applicant to significantly narrow definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. The Examiner has interpreted the claims with scope parallel to the Applicant in the response and reiterates the need for the Applicant to more clearly and distinctly define the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ashkenazi et al. (US 20230297315) disclosed a cloud-based shared browser allowing participants associated with different permission levels with access to the shared browser (Ashkenazi. [0055]).
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 JERRY B DENNISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:50.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/JERRY B DENNISON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights