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 .
Priority
Application 19/094,778 was filed on March 28, 2025 and claims priority to Indian Patent Application No. 202441053526 filed on July 12, 2024.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 9 were amended in the reply filed April 28, 2026.
Response to Arguments
112(f):
Applicant's amendments do not overcome the invocation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and it is maintained.
101:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that the claims do not recite a mental process. Specifically, that “operations are performed on computer-generated data structured that inherently require processing of temporal event streams and frame-level visual data, which cannot be practically performed in the human mind” and “the claimed processing of a sequence of frames and associated interaction events in real time, and detection of interaction failure states based on such data, is not practically performable mentally or with pen and paper” (Remarks p. 7). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite features such as analyze a customer session, tag (i.e. identify) customer issues, detect when a user is unable to proceed, and provide suggestions to the customer. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these features can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. For example, a human can observe a user session on a computer (e.g. by standing behind the user and watching), the human can then identify issues, including when the user is unable to proceed, and offer verbal suggestions in real-time to the user. As such, the claims do recite a mental process. Examiner notes that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) – “if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept … the claim is considered to recite a mental process”).
Applicant further argues that the claims do not recite a method of organizing human activity. Specifically, that the claims “recite a specific technological mechanism for detecting system-level interaction states within a computing environment and triggering system-generated responses” and “operate on low-level interaction data generated by a computing system and modify system behavior in real time based on detected interaction states, which is fundamentally different from organizing human activity” (Remarks p. 7-8). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements recited by the claims do not negate the abstract idea. Instead, they are analyzed in Step 2A-Prong 2 to see if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, identifying and mitigating customer issues while using a product, as recited by the claims, is “certain methods of organizing human activity”. Examiner notes claims 1 and 9 stating that the claimed system and method are for “improving engagement as a customer navigates a software product” as well as paragraph [0002] of Applicant’s specification stating that the “invention generally relates to the field of customer support systems and more particularly, to a system and method for improving customer engagement”, which illustrate the nature of the business relationships and sales activities.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite an improvement to technology. Specifically, “the requirement that the system detect when a user is unable to proceed based on interaction events such as clicks, navigation, form submissions, and error messages reflects a specific technological solution to the problem of identifying user interaction failure states within a software system” (Remarks p. 8-9) and “generating a summary of the session based on identified key frames within the screen recording … provides a technical improvement by reducing the volume of data required to represent a customer session, thereby improving storage and processing efficiency” (Remarks p. 8-9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite detecting an instance where the user is unable to proceed and generating a summary of the session at a very high-level of detail such that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, they are merely part of the abstract idea. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not support any such improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a) – “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification”).
Lastly, Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea because “the claims do not merely append well-understood, routine, or conventional activities to an abstract idea” (Remarks p. 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above and in the 101 rejection below. Examiner notes that the consideration of whether or not the claims recite well-understood, routine, conventional activity is one of multiple considerations when evaluating whether additional elements amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).
Accordingly, the claim is rejected.
103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9 recite, “wherein the screen recording comprises a sequence of frames and associated user interaction events including clicks, page navigations, form submissions, and error messages” (emphasis added). This limitation is not supported by the specification. Applicant does not cite any specific paragraphs of the specification for support. Applicant’s specification teaches: “the session recording includes various actions performed by the customer’s actions, including clicks, page navigations, form entries, and any error messages encountered” [0023] (emphasis added). Examiner notes that a “form submission” is not the same as a “form entry”. There are no other sections of Applicant’s specification that teach the amended limitations. Therefore, claims 1-9 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 2-8 and 10-14 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claims 1 and 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-15 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 1 and 9 recite, “wherein the corresponding summary is generated from identification of key frames within the screen recording” and “the corresponding summary that is derived from the identified key frames of the screen recording” (emphasis added). The term “key” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “key” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner notes that paragraph [0030] of Applicant’s specification states that “key frames are identified from the screen recording”. However, the specification does not describe what makes a frame “key” or how to determine if one frame is “key” over another. For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted to recite, “wherein the corresponding summary is generated from identification of frames within the screen recording” and “the corresponding summary that is derived from the identified frames of the screen recording” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 9 further recite, “a suggestion module configured to, in response to detection that the user is unable to proceed with the interaction with the software product, provide a plurality of suggestions in real- time to the customer while the customer explores a plurality of features of the software product” (emphasis added). This limitation is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear how a user can explore the features of a software product when the user is no longer able to interact with the software product (as exploring the features of the software product involve being able to interact with the software product). For the purposes of examination, and in light of paragraph [0026] of Applicant’s specification, the claims are interpreted to recite, “a suggestion module configured to, in response to detection that the user is unable to proceed with the interaction with the software product, provide a plurality of suggestions in real- time to the customer” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2-8 and 10-14 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claims 1 and 9.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 1:
Claims 1-8 recite a system (i.e., a machine) and claims 9-15 recite a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Examiner notes that the term “module” is interpreted to mean a circuit or hardware as described in the 112(f) interpretation above.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite, capture a recording of a customer session, wherein the customer session corresponds to a period from a beginning of an interaction with the product until an end of the interaction;
analyze the recording to generate a corresponding summary of the customer session, wherein the corresponding summary is generated from identification of key frames within the recording;
tag a plurality of issues faced by the customer during the customer session;
detect, based on the associated user interaction events, an instance where the user is unable to proceed with the interaction with the product, including based on at least one of repeated user actions, time spent on a task, or occurrence of error messages;
in response to detection that the user is unable to proceed with the interaction with the product, provide a plurality of suggestions to the customer while the customer explores a plurality of features of the product;
the corresponding summary of the customer session is attached to a ticket item;
displays the corresponding summary that is derived from the identified key frames of the recording;
and corresponding to the ticket item.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). Specifically, identifying and mitigating customer issues while using a product is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities.
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to analyze a customer session, tag (i.e. identify) customer issues, and provide suggestions to the customer can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 9 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”; or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; or adding insignificant extra-solution activity.
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a session recording module configured to capture a screen recording (claim 1); a session analysis module coupled to the session recording module (claim 1); a suggestion module (claim 1); real-time processing (claims 1 and 9); and a user interface, including a first user interface portion and a second user interface portion (claims 1 and 9). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. As such, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner notes that providing “suggestions in real-time” is described at a very high-level of detail (see paragraphs [0002-0003 and 0026] of Applicant’s specification) such that it appears to be a generic “real-time” processing function performed on a generic computer.
Furthermore, claims 1 and 9 recite the additional element of a software product. This additional element is described at high level of generality such that, when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., selling and offering customer support for software products).
Additionally, “capture a screen recording of a customer session, wherein the screen recording comprises a sequence of frames and associated user interaction events including clicks, page navigations, form submissions, and error messages”, amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1 and 9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
With respect to the extra solution activity of “capture a screen recording of a customer session, wherein the screen recording comprises a sequence of frames and associated user interaction events including clicks, page navigations, form submissions, and error messages”, these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and perform generic computer functions (e.g., transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Examiner notes that paragraph of Applicant's specification [0023] discloses “session recording” at a high-level of generality demonstrating the well- understood, routine, and conventional nature of the elements.
Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2, 3, 6-8, and 10-15, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without reciting any additional elements. They are therefore, ineligible for the reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claims 1, and 9. The additional elements in claims 4 and 5 are discussed below.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
Dependent claims 4 and 5, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 4 and 5 also recite the additional elements of a ticket module. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
With respect to claims 4 and 5, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., applying the exception using a generic computer component, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a ticket module, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 4 and 5 are also ineligible.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0136253 to Liberman Ben-Ami et al. (Liberman Ben-Ami) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0256429 to Lucioni et al. (Lucioni) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0245075 to Dhoolia et al. (Dhoolia).
As to claim 1, Liberman Ben-Ami teaches, a customer support system for improving engagement as a customer navigates a software product, the customer support system comprising (“Embodiments of the invention provide a system and method for tracking and analyzing interactions of each customer over the World Wide Web ("web") including the Internet and/or an Intranet (when used herein, the web may be used interchangeably with the Internet and/or Intranet, as web is a system of interlinked hypertext documents accessed via the Internet and/or Intranet) …” [0039] Examiner notes that “for improving engagement as a customer navigates a software product” is interpreted to be a statement of intended use (see MPEP 2111.02(II))):
a session recording module configured to capture a screen recording of a customer session (“Embodiments of the invention provides systems and methods for "recording" or tracking customer-specific and/or session-specific web activity …” and “… Each web page 1606 may include a still image or screenshots of the web page and/or a video of the user interacting with the page, for example, moving a cursor over the page, entering information into data fields, etc. …” [0045 and 0257-0260]);
and the customer session corresponds to a period from a beginning of an interaction with the software product until an end of the interaction (“… A session may include a series of interactions executed by a customer, for example, ending when the customer logs off, closes the browser used for viewing, completes a transaction, or finishes viewing a document …” and “… For example, a customer interacting with an agent may have been or may begin interacting with a web server, for example, with or without the agent's knowledge or according to the agent's instructions …” and “… Web analyzer 418 may also automatically and passively divide the interactions into distinct user sessions for an agent device 430 (e.g., agent device 120 FIG. 1), for example, via a PO client 420. PO client 420 may determine when a previous session ends (e.g., when no user feedback is received for a predetermined period of time) and when a new session begins (e.g., when user feedback is received after a delay) …” [0040 and 0068]);
a session analysis module coupled to the session recording module and configured to: analyze the screen recoding to generate a corresponding summary of the customer session (“Embodiments of the invention may analyze interactions and extract web content for each customer or user to build one or more session summaries …” [0040-0042]);
a suggestion module configured to, in response to detection [of an issue] (“… The real-time guidance message may offer to "shadow browse" the customer, for example, simulating the customer's web session for the agent to view. Embodiments of the invention may be used for technical support, selling, "up-selling" or "cross-selling," filling in surveys, etc., although other applications may be used” and “In some embodiments, agent devices 120 may "shadow-browse" a user computer, for example, providing agent devices 120 with real-time playback of user computer 102 interactions so that the agent may monitor or guide user interactions in real time …” and “… PO client 420 may transfer the data from each user computer 406 to one or more agent device 430, for example, which are assigned to provide the user support …” [0044-0045 and 0053 and 0070-0074]);
wherein the user interface comprises (a) a first user interface portion that displays the corresponding summary that is derived from the identified key frames of the screen recording (“… In general, an agent providing support to a user may retrieve summaries for all sessions across all communication channels or a subset of a session, for example, within a specified time period, conducted over specific communication …” and “… Interface 200 may display a summary 202 of a history of a current customer's one or more relevant or interesting web or cross-channel interactions …” [0041-0042 and 0057-0059]).
While Liberman Ben-Ami teaches, a suggestion module configured to, in response to detection [of an issue] with the interaction with the software product, provide a plurality of suggestions in real-time to the customer while the customer explores a plurality of features of the software product, Liberman Ben-Ami does not teach detection that the user is unable to proceed with the interaction with the software product. However, Lucioni teaches, detection that the user is unable to proceed with the interaction with the software product (“In some embodiments, the description generation module 704 may be configured to use the language model 712 to generate a description of an issue in a session of a software application. An example of such a description is “Users unable to select flight seats.’ …” [0172]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the detection that the user is unable to proceed with the interaction with the software product of Lucioni for the detection of an issue with the interaction with the software product of Liberman Ben-Ami. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Lucioni that doing so would improve functionality of the software application [0003].
Liberman Ben-Ami does not teach, wherein the screen recording comprises a sequence of frames and associated user interaction events including clicks, page navigations, form submissions, and error messages; wherein the corresponding summary is generated from identification of key frames within the screen recording; tag a plurality of issues faced by the customer during the customer session; detect, based on the associated user interaction events, an instance where the user is unable to proceed with the interaction with the software product, including based on at least one of repeated user actions, time spent on a task, or occurrence of error messages. However, Lucioni teaches, wherein the screen recording comprises a sequence of frames and associated user interaction events including clicks, page navigations, form submissions, and error messages (“… The session representation may indicate a sequence of events that occurred during the session. For example, the session representation may be a textual log indicating a sequence of events (e.g., user actions) in a session, a sequence of images of the sequence of events, and/or other indication of the sequence of events …” and “Example parameters of which values may be collected by the session management module 206 include the following: … Navigation events (e.g., page loads and/or change in history) … User activity (e.g., changes in cursor position, click count, touch interaction count, click coordinates, touch surface interaction coordinates, scroll coordinates, and/or interactions with input elements) …” and “… As illustrated in FIG. 14A, GUIs 1404 and 1405 include evidence of a technical issue in the given first user session. The evidence of the technical issue is in the form of error message 1407, which reads ‘Sorry, this service is unavailable’ when the user tries to click on executable text 1408, which is labeled ‘Don't remember your password?’ … This description is in the form of two statements. The first statement is that the user first tries logging in [i.e., form submissions] with their email and password, but the website does not accept it. The second statement is that the user tries to reset their password but encounters the same error message ‘Sorry, this service is unavailable’ when trying to click on ‘Don't remember you password?’ …” [0050 and 0068-0080 and 0262-0267]),
wherein the corresponding summary is generated from identification of key frames within the screen recording (“Described herein are also techniques for automatically generating natural language descriptions of issues [i.e., a corresponding summary] that are detected in sessions …” and “… After receiving a description, the techniques provide input to the language model requesting a concise summary that includes the initial description as part of the input. Accordingly, the techniques guide the language model to the generation of a concise summary of the issue in the session(s) … Accordingly, some embodiments limit the generation of a natural language description of issues to those issues that are classified as high impact (e.g., after triaging the issues). Triaging techniques described herein are used to identify a subset of issues that are classified as high impact and for which to generate natural language descriptions by processing data using a trained language model …” [0047 and 0054-0055];
tag a plurality of issues faced by the customer during the customer session (“… For example, the user 104 may be provided with a listing of detected issues. The user 104 may be able to access data associated with the issue by selecting one of the detected issues …” and “In some embodiments, the triage module 210 may triage detected issues using data collected during one or more sessions in which the issues occurred (e.g., by session management module 206) …” [0040-0043 and 0089]);
detect, based on the associated user interaction events, an instance where the user is unable to proceed with the interaction with the software product, including based on at least one of repeated user actions, time spent on a task, or occurrence of error messages (“… For example, the issue detection module 208 may detect occurrence of an application error, a failed network request (e.g., indicated by response status code), a delayed network request coinciding with user activity (e.g., mouse movement, scrolling), a particular pattern of user activity (e.g., click or touch interaction followed by a lack of visible change in a GUI within a certain amount of time, or a large number of clicks or touches in a given area of a GUI within a time period), and/or common and user-configured application GUI error states …” and “… For example, the output 822 may be: ‘Users unable to select flight seats.’” and “… This short phrase includes ‘Users unable to reset passwords.’ It should be appreciated from a comparison of fourth input 1417 and fourth output 1418 that fourth output 1418 complies with the request provided in fourth input 1417” [0085 and 0240-0241 and 0268-0271]);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the screen recording comprises a sequence of frames and associated user interaction events including clicks, page navigations, form submissions, and error messages; wherein the corresponding summary is generated from identification of key frames within the screen recording; tag a plurality of issues faced by the customer during the customer session; detect, based on the associated user interaction events, an instance where the user is unable to proceed with the interaction with the software product, including based on at least one of repeated user actions, time spent on a task, or occurrence of error messages, as taught by Lucioni with the customer session analysis system and method of Liberman Ben-Ami. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Lucioni that doing so would improve functionality of the software application [0003].
Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Lucioni does not teach, and a user interface where the corresponding summary of the customer session is attached to a ticket item; wherein the user interface comprises (b) a second user interface portion corresponding to the ticket item. However, Dhoolia teaches, and a user interface where the corresponding summary of the customer session is attached to a ticket item (“… In accordance with at least one embodiment of the invention, a traced event timeline 221 may be displayed, whereupon the user may be asked to associate the relevant part of the process to the ticket. Thus, here a relevant timeline segment may be selected and associated to the ticket, with different segments of the timeline being clickable …” and “… Information derived from the trace of the information technology system is associated with the information technology ticket (308).” [0024-0026 and 0030]),
wherein the user interface comprises (b) a second user interface portion corresponding to the ticket item (“… (For instance, it can be appreciated that several user interface components such as drop-down menus, boxes, radio buttons, etc., permit a user to select from different choices offered by the system.) "Action" here refers to clicking on an actionable user interface component (e.g., a button) as part of the user's interaction with the system … In a scenario where the ticket management tool provider is different from the runtime environment provider, the user may explicitly export the trace to a structured file, and then explicitly attach that trace export file to the ticket created in the external ticket management tool” [0024-0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, and a user interface where the corresponding summary of the customer session is attached to a ticket item; wherein the user interface comprises (b) a second user interface portion corresponding to the ticket item, as taught by Dhoolia with the customer session analysis system and method of Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Lucioni. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Dhoolia that doing so would improve the quality of information relative to the incident on the ticket [0002].
Regarding claim 9, this claim is essentially coextensive with claim 1, other than it recites a method instead of a system. Because Liberman Ben-Ami teaches a method as well as a system (see [0004]), claim 9 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 1, relying on the same combination of Liberman Ben-Ami, Lucioni and Dhoolia to render the claims obvious. Similar dependent claims below will be treated together for the sake of brevity.
As to claims 2 and 10, Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Lucioni in view of Dhoolia teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as discussed above. Liberman Ben-Ami does not teach, wherein the session analysis module is configured to maintain a session log; wherein the session log comprises one or more errors and glitches encountered by the customer during the customer session. However, Lucioni teaches wherein the session analysis module is configured to maintain a session log; wherein the session log comprises one or more errors and glitches encountered by the customer during the customer session (“… The session representation may indicate a sequence of events that occurred during the session. For example, the session representation may be a textual log indicating a sequence of events (e.g., user actions) in a session, a sequence of images of the sequence of events, and/or other indication of the sequence of events …” and “The issue detection module 208 may detect the occurrence of an issue in various ways. In some embodiments, the issue detection module 208 may detect an issue by detecting occurrence of an error in the software application …” [0050 and 0085]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the session analysis module is configured to maintain a session log; wherein the session log comprises one or more errors and glitches encountered by the customer during the customer session, as taught by Lucioni with the customer session analysis system and method of Liberman Ben-Ami. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Lucioni that doing so would improve functionality of the software application [0003].
As to claims 3 and 11, Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Lucioni in view of Dhoolia teaches all of the limitations of claims 2 and 10 as discussed above. Liberman Ben-Ami does not teach, wherein the session analysis module is further configured to highlight one or more critical items in the session log for priority resolution by a customer support team. However, Lucioni teaches wherein the session analysis module is further configured to highlight one or more critical items in the session log for priority resolution by a customer support team (“… The triaging facilitates troubleshooting of issues and identification of resolutions by allowing resources to be focused on issues with high impact [i.e., critical items] on the software application. For example, technical support and/or software developers may focus on issues determined to be of high impact …” and “… The session representation may indicate a sequence of events that occurred during the session. For example, the session representation may be a textual log indicating a sequence of events (e.g., user actions) in a session, a sequence of images of the sequence of events, and/or other indication of the sequence of events …” [0042-0044 and 0050]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the session analysis module is further configured to highlight one or more critical items in the session log for priority resolution by a customer support team, as taught by Lucioni with the customer session analysis system and method of Liberman Ben-Ami. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Lucioni that doing so would improve functionality of the software application [0003].
As to claim 5, Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Lucioni in view of Dhoolia teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Liberman Ben-Ami further teaches, wherein the ticket module is further configured to access the summary of the customer session (“… Analysis server 116 may compile or assemble each user's associated content to generate a summary of the user's web-interaction history, for example, which may be sent in real-time to the agent client …” and “… Agent device 430 may view a user's past session data as a history of relevant interactions, as a summary report of those interactions, or as a playback simulation of the interactions …” [0051 and 0072-0073]).
As to claim 6, Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Lucioni in view of Dhoolia teaches all of the limitations of claims 2 as discussed above. Liberman Ben-Ami does not teach, wherein the sessions analysis module is further configured to identify a plurality of potential bugs in the product based on the customer session; wherein the plurality of bugs is flagged to the customer support team for resolution. However, Lucioni teaches wherein the sessions analysis module is further configured to identify a plurality of potential bugs in the product based on the customer session; wherein the plurality of bugs is flagged to the customer support team for resolution (“… The issue detection system may collect information about usage of the software application during a session that can then be used to investigate any issue that occurred during the session (e.g., to identify a root cause) and/or to identify a resolution in the software application that prevents the issue from occurring in the future (e.g., updating code of the software application to resolve a bug)” [0038-0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the sessions analysis module is further configured to identify a plurality of potential bugs in the product based on the customer session; wherein the plurality of bugs is flagged to the customer support team for resolution, as taught by Lucioni with the customer session analysis system and method of Liberman Ben-Ami. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Lucioni that doing so would improve functionality of the software application [0003].
As to claim 7, Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Lucioni in view of Dhoolia teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Liberman Ben-Ami further teaches, wherein the suggestion module is configured to dynamically update the plurality of suggestions based on a plurality of insights (“… Interface 200 may update the recommendations based on the customer response, for example, automatically or when requested by the agent, to provide alternative recommendations if the response was negative or similar recommendations if the response was positive (or tentative) …” and “… Agent device 430 may also be provided with a guide updated in real-time with recommendations targeted to the user's real-time interactions …” [0058 and 0073]).
As to claim 8, Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Lucioni in view of Dhoolia teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above. Liberman Ben-Ami further teaches, wherein the plurality of suggestions is personalized to the customer (“… Interface 200 may update the recommendations based on the customer response, for example, automatically or when requested by the agent, to provide alternative recommendations if the response was negative or similar recommendations if the response was positive (or tentative) …” and “… Agent device 430 may also be provided with a guide updated in real-time with recommendations targeted to the user's real-time interactions …” [0058 and 0073]).
Claims 4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0136253 to Liberman Ben-Ami et al. (Liberman Ben-Ami) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0256429 to Lucioni et al. (Lucioni) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0245075 to Dhoolia et al. (Dhoolia), as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0316298 to Singhal et al. (Singhal).
As to claim 4, Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Lucioni in view of Dhoolia teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Liberman Ben-Ami in view in view of Lucioni in view of Dhoolia does not teach, further comprising a ticket module configured to enable a customer support team to resolve one or more tickets raised by the customer during or after the customer session; wherein the ticket module is configured to access the session log for providing context to the customer support team. However, Singhal teaches further comprising a ticket module configured to enable a customer support team to resolve one or more tickets raised by the customer during or after the customer session (“As used herein, the terms “customer support request,” “customer escalation” or “customer ticket” may refer to an input received from a customer that provides an explanation for an issue the customer is facing in using their computer system and/or software program …” and “A link to the newly generated operating procedure 164 may then be provided as a recommendation 162 for display to the user. In some implementations, the link is added to the customer support request ticket such that the customer and/or the troubleshooter reviewing the request may have quick access to the operating procedure for addressing the raised issue …” [0022 and 0079]);
wherein the ticket module is configured to access the session log for providing context to the customer support team (“To automatically generate an operating procedure, the operating procedure generation engine 160 may first retrieve audit data 142 and/or incident history data 144. The incident history data 144 may include a log of previous incidents related to a software program and/or computing system …” and “wherein automatically generating a new operating procedure for resolving the issue includes: retrieving at least one of incident history data and audit data …” [0046 and 0128-0132]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, further comprising a ticket module configured to enable a customer support team to resolve one or more tickets raised by the customer during or after the customer session; wherein the ticket module is configured to access the session log for providing context to the customer support team, as taught by Singhal with the customer session analysis system and method of Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Lucioni in view of Dhoolia. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Singhal that doing so would intelligently managing customer support requests while reducing cost and resources [0002-0003].
As to claim 12, Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Lucioni in view of Dhoolia teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Lucioni in view of Dhoolia does not teach, further comprising a ticket module configured to enable a customer support team to resolve one or more tickets raised by the customer during or after the customer session; wherein the ticket module is configured to access the session log for providing context to the customer support team. However, Singhal teaches further comprising enabling a customer support team to resolve one or more tickets raised by the customer during or after the customer session (“As used herein, the terms “customer support request,” “customer escalation” or “customer ticket” may refer to an input received from a customer that provides an explanation for an issue the customer is facing in using their computer system and/or software program …” and “A link to the newly generated operating procedure 164 may then be provided as a recommendation 162 for display to the user. In some implementations, the link is added to the customer support request ticket such that the customer and/or the troubleshooter reviewing the request may have quick access to the operating procedure for addressing the raised issue …” [0022 and 0079]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, further comprising enabling a customer support team to resolve one or more tickets raised by the customer during or after the customer session, as taught by Singhal with the customer session analysis system and method of Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Lucioni in view of Dhoolia. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Singhal that doing so would intelligently managing customer support requests while reducing cost and resources [0002-0003].
As to claim 13, Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Lucioni in view of Dhoolia and in further view of Singhal teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Liberman Ben-Ami further teaches, further comprising enabling access the summary of the customer session to provide context to the customer support team (“… Analysis server 116 may compile or assemble each user's associated content to generate a summary of the user's web-interaction history, for example, which may be sent in real-time to the agent client …” and “… Agent device 430 may view a user's past session data as a history of relevant interactions, as a summary report of those interactions, or as a playback simulation of the interactions …” [0051 and 0072-0073]).
As to claim 14, Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Lucioni in view of Dhoolia and in further view of Singhal teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Liberman Ben-Ami does not teach, further comprising identifying a plurality of potential bugs in the product based on the customer session; wherein the plurality of bugs is flagged to the customer support team for resolution. However, Lucioni teaches further comprising identifying a plurality of potential bugs in the product based on the customer session; wherein the plurality of bugs is flagged to the customer support team for resolution (“… The issue detection system may collect information about usage of the software application during a session that can then be used to investigate any issue that occurred during the session (e.g., to identify a root cause) and/or to identify a resolution in the software application that prevents the issue from occurring in the future (e.g., updating code of the software application to resolve a bug)” [0038-0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, further comprising identifying a plurality of potential bugs in the product based on the customer session; wherein the plurality of bugs is flagged to the customer support team for resolution, as taught by Lucioni with the customer session analysis system and method of Liberman Ben-Ami. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Lucioni that doing so would improve functionality of the software application [0003].
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 STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights