DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a First Action Non-Final on the merits. Claims 1-24 as originally, filed, are currently pending and have been considered below. 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 § 101
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, Claims 1 and 23 recite a process (i.e., a series of acts or steps), Claim 24 recites a manufacture (i.e., "an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means.") Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
3. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
4. Claims 1 which is representative of claims 23 and 24 recites:
“accessing…one or more products for sale…is viewed by a plurality of users;”, “installing…enables an interaction between a user within the plurality of users and a sales associate;”, “establishing the interaction between the sales associate and the user;”, “obtaining a uniform resource locator (URL), by the sales associate, wherein the URL is located;”, “the user, to the URL…wherein the user approves the directing,”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations recite an abstract idea of performing collaborative browsing which encompasses concepts such as commercial interactions, (i.e., advertising, marketing or sales activities, business relations), managing personal behavior or interactions (i.e., social activities, series of steps to follow), that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(II)
The Applicant’s Specification at [0003]This application relates generally to video sharing and more particularly to non-invasive collaborative browsing
Consistent with the disclosure the limitations of “accessing”, “installing”, “establishing”, “obtaining”, cover a series of tasks that occur between a user and a sales associate working for a business in order to conduct a co-browsing session. The limitations involve concepts for managing personal behavior or interactions between people and commercial interactions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
5. Under Step 2A – Prong Two of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “a website”, “a website domain”, “a plurality of devices”, “a communications agent on the website”, “an overlay on the website;”, “a web browser on a device”, “directing is accomplished without control of the device;” “directing is based on the communications agent”, “a database”, “a mobile application”, “a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium, the computer program product comprising code which causes one or more processors to perform operations of” – see claims 1, 23, and 24 are recited at a high-level of generality in light of the specification Thus, because the specification describes the additional elements in general terms without describing the particulars the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting generic computer components being used in their ordinary capacity to aid in carrying out the judicial exception. The additional elements recited in the claims add the words “apply it” (with the judicial exception), or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer processor as a tool to perform the abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f).
The other additional elements of: “a computer-implemented method for video sharing comprising” is an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (h).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
6. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “a website”, “a website domain”, “a plurality of devices”, “a communications agent on the website”, “an overlay on the website;”, “a web browser on a device”, “directing is accomplished without control of the device;” “directing is based on the communications agent” – see claims 1, 23, and 24 at best amounts to nothing more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception and cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
7. Claims 2-22 are dependents claim of 1.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the user approves the directing by voice, chat, text, or video” further describes tasks a user may perform to carry out the abstract idea, but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 3 recites “further comprising recognizing approval, of the user, by an artificial intelligence agent” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract. Here, the artificial intelligence agent is described at a high-level of generality. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to recognize, to respond) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Claim 4 recites “wherein the directing is initiated by the artificial intelligence agent” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to transmit data) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Claim 5 recites the method of claim 4 wherein the recognizing includes evaluating, by the artificial intelligence agent, the interaction” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claim 6 recites “further comprising collecting, using one or more processors, from the plurality of users, user information” adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract data. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering to aid in performing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g) Claim 7 recites “wherein the user information includes website history, chat text, voice interaction, or video usage information” further describes data and/or information that maybe used to perform the abstract idea, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 8 recites “further comprising analyzing the user information, wherein the analyzing is based on machine learning” further describes collecting and comparing known user information which are steps that may be performed in the human mind or with pen or paper. Here, the limitation recite mental process including (observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) to carry out the abstract idea. Adding one abstract idea to another abstract idea does not make the claim any less abstract. The use of “machine learning” adds the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and/or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Claim 9 recites “further comprising matching the user information that was collected with one or more qualities of a plurality of sales associates” further describes the information or data necessary to perform the abstract idea. The limitation narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 10 recites “wherein the qualities include expertise, hobbies, appearance, conversion rate, tone, or style” further describes the information or data necessary to perform the abstract idea, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 11 recites “further comprising selecting a specific sales associate within the plurality of sales associates, wherein the selecting is based on the matching” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 12 recites “further comprising predicting a purchase intention, for the user, of the one or more products for sale, wherein the predicting is based on the analyzing, and wherein the predicting is based on machine learning” further describes collecting and comparing known user information to determine a purchase intention which are steps that may be performed in the human mind or with pen or paper. Here, the limitations recite mental processes including (observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) to carry out the abstract idea. Adding one abstract idea to another abstract idea does not make the claim any less abstract. The use of “machine learning” adds the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception and/or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Claim 13 recites “further comprising alerting the sales associate when the user requires help, wherein the alerting is based on the purchase intention” further describes that the purchase intention is used to alert an associate, at best narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 14 recites “wherein the purchase intention comprises informational intent” further describes the information or data that may be used, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 15 recites “wherein the purchase intention comprises investigative intent” further describes the information or data that may be used, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 16 recites “wherein the purchase intention comprises navigational intent” further describes the information or data that may be used, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 17 recites “wherein the purchase intention comprises transactional intent” further describes the information or data that may be used, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 18 recites “wherein the establishing is initiated by the sales associate” further describes a user may perform the tasks recited within the abstract idea, which does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 19 recites “further comprising prioritizing the plurality of users, wherein the prioritizing is based on the purchase intention that was predicted” further describes using the purchase prediction to arrange or order users for selection, which further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 20 recites “further comprising selecting, by the sales associate, one user from the plurality of users that was prioritized.” further describes a task a user may perform to carry out the abstract idea, which does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 21 recites “wherein the interaction includes a second sales associate” further describes the information or data that may be recited within the abstract idea, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 22 recites “wherein the directing includes an additional URL” further describes the information or data that may be recited within the abstract idea, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Accordingly, when the dependent claims are considered individually and in combination with the judicial exception, the limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu (US 2010/0306153 A1) in further view of Light (US 2008/0052377 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 23, 24, Mu discloses
a computer-implemented method and a computer program product for video sharing (¶ 0006, 0012, 0014: discloses methods and systems are disclosed for a communication system that initiates communication sessions between a website visitor and a agent who work for the website. The session can be a multimedia session that contains instant text messaging, video conference, and file sharing. The system provides live communications between a visitor and a customer service agent directly on the web page.) comprising:
accessing a website within a website domain (¶ 0054: discloses rendering a web site page to be browsed by a visitor, collecting information on visitor activities one the webpage, collecting browser parameters for the visitor.), wherein the website includes one or more products for sale (¶ 0049: discloses a page about product A), and
wherein the website is viewed by a plurality of users with a plurality of devices (¶ 0024-0027, 0030-0033, 0060: discloses a web server is used to track which web page is being viewed by which visitor. The system includes a database of unique site visitors with all kinds of parameters parsed from their IP address, browser cookies, among others.);
installing a communications agent on the website (¶ 0012-0013, 0023: discloses client software the user needs to download to the user’s computer. The client software can be embedded on each and every web page so that can be loaded into visitors computers when they load the web pages.),
wherein the communications agent enables an interaction between a user within the plurality of users and a sales associate (¶ 0012-0013, 0023: discloses client software enables clients and agents to conduct multimedia communication sessions. The client software embedded in web pages provides advantage of communicating with visitors in real time while they are browsing the pages.);
establishing the interaction between the sales associate and the user (¶ 0048, 0050, 0057: discloses the communication system initiates multi-media communication requests to website operators and website visitors based on rule sets.),
wherein the interaction includes an overlay on the website (¶ 0057: discloses when a user is browsing a page and meets the conditions, he will receive a little pop-up window within the web page.);
wherein the directing is accomplished without control of the device (¶ 0014, 0023, 0058: discloses the software allows to receive instant help from an agent that is on the same page of the visitor. The software allows the agent to exchange text message, conduct voice talk, share file, and have video conference with the client one after the other. The examiner notes as best understood from the passages the agent does not have full device control.),
wherein the user approves the directing (¶ 0048, 0055, 0057: discloses the user can reply “yes” to accept the request.), and wherein the directing is based on the communications agent. (¶ 0014, 0023, 0058: discloses the software of the system provides live communications between the visitor and agent directly on the webpage.)
The Mu reference does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Light reference is related to creating and facilitating user and customer service representative interaction using computer networks (¶ 0003) and teaches:
obtaining a uniform resource locator (URL), by the sales associate (¶ 0012: discloses different forms of co-browsing exist. Co-browsing may simply involve the customer service representative sending a URL.), wherein the URL is located within the website domain (¶ 0012: discloses the URL would appear in the user’s web page.); and directing a web browser on a device of the user, to the URL (¶ 0012-0013: discloses allowing the user to click the URL to load the web page.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the methods and system of Mu, to include the techniques for obtaining a uniform resource locator (URL), by the sales associate, wherein the URL is located within the website domain; and directing a web browser on a device of the user, to the URL, as disclosed by Light to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Light, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages with assisting customers, so the customer service representative would be able to focus on the specific page the customer is trying to use. (¶ 0011-0013)
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Mu and Light discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the user approves the directing by voice, chat, text, or video. (¶ 0057: Mu discloses the user can reply “yes” to accept the request. The examiner notes as best understood the user reply is text-based)
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Mu and Light discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising collecting, using one or more processors, from the plurality of users, user information. (¶ 0024-0027: Mu discloses a webserver is used to track which web page is being viewed by which visitor. When the browsing actions are taking place web server can collect the information such as visitor ip address 1, page url 1, etc.)
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Mu and Light discloses the method of claim 6 wherein the user information includes website history, chat text, voice interaction, or video usage information. (¶ 0024-0027: Mu discloses a webserver is used to track which web page is being viewed by which visitor. When the browsing actions are taking place web server can collect the information such as visitor ip address 1, page url 1, etc.)
With respect to claim 21, the combination of Mu and Light discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the interaction includes a second sales associate. (¶ 0048, 0050, 0057: Mu discloses the communication system initiates multi-media communication requests to website operators)
With respect to claim 22, the combination of Mu and Light discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the directing includes an additional URL. (¶ 0100-0101: Light discloses URLs and collaborative co-browsing requests from representatives are routed through the server.)
11. Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu in view of Light in further view of Brown (US 2019/0042988 A1).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Mu and Light do not explicitly discloses the following limitations.
In the same field of endeavor, the Brown reference is related to an artificial intelligence agent system (abstract) and teaches:
further comprising recognizing approval, of the user, by an artificial intelligence agent. (¶ 0047, 0051, 0064, 0077-0079: discloses an artificial intelligence agent system 10 providing an interface between a client system 12 and an enterprise system 14. The AI agent system may generally function as an omni-channel , intelligent, proactive virtual agent with respect to the client system 12. The AI agent system 10 may receive queries, commands, or other requests from the client system. The AI agent system 10 may provide the following functionalities: provide assistance with workflows, take actions based on requests, initiate communication with employees of an enterprise. The AI agent system may send and/or receive various data to and/or from enterprise data services 32, i.e., manages user identities, their authentication, authorization, and privileges.)
There, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Mu and Light, to include further comprising recognizing approval, of the user, by an artificial intelligence agent, as disclosed by Brown to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Brown, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages for limiting the need to access employees of the enterprise for assistance. (¶ 0043-0044)
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Mu, Light, and Brown discloses the method of claim 3 wherein the directing is initiated by the artificial intelligence agent. (¶ 0051, 0061: Brown discloses the AI agent system 10 may interact directly with the client system 12. The AI agent system 10 can also initiate communication to the client system 12 regarding a workflow.)
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Mu, Light, and Brown discloses the method of claim 4 wherein the recognizing includes evaluating, by the artificial intelligence agent, the interaction. (¶ 0051, 0077: Brown discloses the AI agent system may use interaction data to obtain answers to queries to get things done.)
12. Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu in view of Light in further view of Daianu (US 11,270,235 B1).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Mu and Light do not explicitly disclose the following limitations.
In the same field of endeavor, the Daianu reference is related to a method and system for determining a qualified agent to route a user to based on the user’s query and profile (col. 1:6-10) and teaches:
further comprising analyzing the user information (col. 4:10-23: discloses the user profile and the user query may be used to generate processed user data),
wherein the analyzing is based on machine learning. (col. 4:34-47: discloses using the machine learning model that has been trained using previous queries from users of the product, information associated with profiles of users,)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Mu and Light to include techniques for analyzing the user information, wherein the analyzing is based on machine learning, as disclosed by Daianu to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Daianu, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide improved efficiency and enhance user experience when providing support specific to a user. (col. 2:58-65)
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Mu, Light, and Daianu discloses the method of claim 8 further comprising matching the user information that was collected with one or more qualities of a plurality of sales associates. (col 3:11-28: Daianu discloses based on the user’s query and profile as well as each agent’s expertise, background, and/or experience. The agent profile of the qualified agent determined to assist the user.)
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Mu, Light, and Daianu discloses the method of claim 9 wherein the qualities include expertise, hobbies, appearance, conversion rate, tone, or style. (col 2:66-67, col. 3:1-45, col. 6:40-54: Daianu discloses a qualified agent is an available agent has the expertise, background, and/or experience to specifically address the user’s query.)
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Mu, Light, and Daianu discloses the method of claim 10 further comprising selecting a specific sales associate within the plurality of sales associates (col. 12:4-6: Daianu discloses a qualified agent associated with a highest predicted quality score is determined from the set of available agents.), wherein the selecting is based on the matching. (col. 12:1-8: Daianu discloses based on the processed user data and agent profile data a qualified agent is determined and the user is routed to the qualified agent.)
13. Claim(s) 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu in view of Light in view of Daianu in further view of Kannan (US 2019/0132451 A1).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Mu, Light, and Daianu does not explicitly disclose the following limitations.
In the same field of endeavor, the Kannan reference is related to a method and apparatus for facilitating agent interaction with customers of an enterprise (abstract) and teaches:
further comprising predicting a purchase intention, for the user, of the one or more products for sale (¶ 0054, 0061, 0072: discloses the customer intent may be predicted based on current interaction of the customer on an enterprise interaction channel. A customer visiting the enterprise website may browse through a number of pages and viewed a number of products. All such activity of the customer may be captured and used for intent prediction purposes.),
wherein the predicting is based on the analyzing (¶ 0054, 0059-0060, 0072: discloses one or more customer intents may be predicted based on current input, current journey and/or past journey on the enterprise channel.), and
wherein the predicting is based on machine learning (¶ 0038, 0054, 0061: discloses the memory is configured to store NLP logic and machine learning algorithms for facilitating prediction of customer intents.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Mu, Light, and Daianu, to include the techniques for predicting a purchase intention based on machine learning, as disclosed by Kannan to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Kannan, the motivation for the combination would have been to add the prediction techniques to provide advantages for facilitating improved agent conversations with customers of the enterprise. (¶ 0117)
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Mu, Light, Daianu, and Kannan discloses the method of claim 12 further comprising alerting the sales associate when the user requires help (¶ 0080: Kannan discloses the virtual assistant may be configured to send an informatory alert to the apparatus to indicate the fact that there may be a need of intervention of human agent in the current conversation.), wherein the alerting is based on the purchase intention.(¶ 0080: Kannan discloses the intent of the current conversation may be sent along with the alert to enable processor to identify the human agent with the right skill-set.)
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Mu, Light, Daianu, and Kannan discloses the method of claim 13 wherein the purchase intention comprises informational intent. (¶ 0046, 0054: Kannan discloses customer intent may be predicted based on past interactions of the customer. If the customer has recently purchased an airline ticket)
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Mu, Light, Daianu, and Kannan discloses the method of claim 13 wherein the purchase intention comprises investigative intent. (¶ 0046, 0054: Kannan discloses customer intent may be predicted based on past interactions of the customer. If the customer conversation related to confirmation of a flight time.)
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Mu, Light, Daianu, and Kannan discloses the method of claim 13 wherein the purchase intention comprises navigational intent. (¶ 0046, 0054: Kannan discloses customer intent may be predicted based on current/past interactions of the customer. If the customer browsed through a number of web pages and may have viewed a number of products.)
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Mu, Light, Daianu, and Kannan discloses the method of claim 13 wherein the purchase intention comprises transactional intent. (¶ 0046, 0054: Kannan discloses customer intent may be predicted based on current/past interactions of the customer. If the customer reschedules their journey or cancels their ticket.)
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Mu, Light, Daianu, and Kannan discloses the method of claim 13 wherein the establishing is initiated by the sales associate. (¶ 0099-0100: Light discloses a method for collaborative co-browsing. The representative 14 decides that a collaborative co-browsing session is desirable, designates a web page to be browsed by indicating an appropriate URL and requests a co-browsing session.)
14. Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu in view of Light in view of Daianu in view of Kannan in further view of DiPietro (US 2015/0154617 A1).
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Mu, Light, Daianu, and Kannan do not explicitly disclose the following limitations.
In the same field of endeavor, DiPietro is related to methods and apparatuses of determining leads from web site interactions (¶ 0002) and teaches:
comprising prioritizing the plurality of users (¶ 0067: discloses using a lead engine 712, leads are aggregated, ranked, and stored from visitors to the web application.), wherein the prioritizing is based on the purchase intention that was predicted. (¶ 0052: discloses leads may be ranked based on a propensity to purchase or level of activity. The ranking criteria may use machine learning, such that the rank of a particular usage session may change as more lead recordings are collected. Ranking criteria may be impacted by several factors such as purchase history, level of activity, previous or future appointment data, among others.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Mu, Light, Daianu, and Kannan, to include the techniques for prioritizing the users based on predicted purchase intentions, as disclosed by DiPietro to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by DiPietro, the motivation for the combination would have been to include the ability for prioritizing the users to provide advantages with helping the business operating the web site better serve the customer or better evaluate which customers to serve or how to serve the customers. (¶ 0002-0005)
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Mu, Light, Daianu, Kannan, and DiPietro disclose the method of claim 19 further comprising selecting, by the sales associate, one user from the plurality of users that was prioritized. (¶ 0067-0068: discloses the operator 784 uses a Web application interface 786 which includes a co-browsing portion 788 to facilitate contact initiation with the visitor 770 in response to the visitor's actions on the Web application 752.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Badge (US 2016/0182643 A1) – (abstract: Embodiments described herein provide systems and method for implementing privacy control in a co-browsing environment. In a particular embodiment, a method provides receiving an instruction in a co-browsing server to initiate a co-browsing session for a website with a first client and a second client. The method further provides receiving first privacy settings from the first client, wherein the first privacy settings indicate how the website should be presented at the second client. The method further provides presenting the website at the first client and presenting the website at the second client based on the first privacy settings.)
Langley (US 10,158,760 B1) – (abstract: a processor is configured to receive and store data related to the customer in association with an interaction between the customer and the customer service representative. A web session for a client computer including presenting a first web page to the customer is commenced. The portion of the data is displayed on a workstation of the customer service representative as a split screen including the first web page and a second web page. The second web page is only viewable by the customer service representative. The modification of an application is enabled on the second web page by the customer service representative during the interaction with the customer. The movement by the customer service representative of an application modified is enabled by the customer service representative during the interaction from the second web page to the first web page for review and interaction by the customer via the client computer.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626