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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a session recording module”, “a session analysis module”, and “a suggestion module” in claim 1; and “a ticket module” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: at applicants published specification paragraphs: [0037] “The various modules of the system 10 may be stored in the tangible storage device 80”; [0042-0044] “the term ‘module’ may be replaced with the term ‘circuit.’ The term ‘module’ may refer to, be part of, or include processor hardware (shared, dedicated, or group) that executes code and memory hardware (shared, dedicated, or group) that stores code executed by the processor hardware …”; and [0051-0052] “the term ‘module’ or the term ‘controller’ may be replaced with the term ‘circuit.’ The term ‘module’ may refer to, be part of, or include processor hardware (shared, dedicated, or group) that executes code and memory hardware (shared, dedicated, or group) that stores code executed by the processor hardware …”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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;
analyze the recording to generate a corresponding summary of the customer session;
tag a plurality of issues faced by the customer during the customer session;
provide a plurality of suggestions to the customer while the customer explores a plurality of features of the product.
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.
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 screen recording (claim 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 the “screen recording” is described at a very high-level of detail (see paragraphs [0023 and 0029-0030] of Applicant’s specification) such that it appears to be a generic screen capture function performed on a generic computer. Examiner further 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).
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. 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. 2021/0142258 to Noivo et al. (Noivo).
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]);
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 provide a plurality of suggestions in real-time to the customer while the customer explores a plurality of features of the software product (“… 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]).
Liberman Ben-Ami does not teach, tag a plurality of issues faced by the customer during the customer session. However, Noivo teaches, tag a plurality of issues faced by the customer during the customer session (“In a further embodiment of the method, collecting error information comprises: receiving and storing session information from a plurality of users, the e-commerce session information of each of the plurality of users associated with the respective user's interaction with the e-commerce application and comprising error indications of one or more application errors resulting from the user's interaction with the e-commerce application, each of the one or more application errors identified by a unique error identifier” and “The session information is sent to a computing device 614 that provides error evaluation functionality. The session information may be collected at the client and sent once the session is completed …” [0024 and 0112]);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, tag a plurality of issues faced by the customer during the customer session, as taught by Noivo with the customer session analysis system and method of Liberman Ben-Ami. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Noivo that doing so would allow errors to be corrected or mitigated more efficiently [0003].
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 and Noivo 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 Noivo 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, Noivo 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 records 114 of the errors are based at least partially on information generated by the computer system (which again may include both software and hardware elements). That information may comprise timestamps, error logs and error numbers, information relating to the at least one user's actions, specific computer system configuration information, and any other relevant information …” and “In some embodiments, each user session on a computer system 304 may be recorded as a single data file …” [0067-0077 and 0089-0092]).
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 Noivo with the customer session analysis system and method of Liberman Ben-Ami. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Noivo that doing so would allow errors to be corrected or mitigated more efficiently [0003].
As to claims 3 and 11, Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Noivo 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, Noivo 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 results of the ranking 118 can then be used to create determine priorities for correction/mitigation” and “… Assigning a severity level to errors may allow a developer or developer to prioritize correcting errors that may have the biggest impact” [0068 and 0106-0107]).
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 Noivo with the customer session analysis system and method of Liberman Ben-Ami. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Noivo that doing so would allow errors to be corrected or mitigated more efficiently [0003].
As to claim 5, Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Noivo 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 Noivo 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, Noivo 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 (“Note that the term ‘error’ as used herein should be interpreted broadly. ‘Errors’ include, but are not limited to, ‘bugs’, ‘glitches’, flaws in code, problems resulting from unexpected user input, logic errors, display errors, interface errors, status and/or network communication errors, and/or anything else that results in less-than-optimal performance of the computer system …” and “… The error evaluation computing device provides functionality for receiving session information from multiple different users and generating error reports that can be presented to a developer or developers of the e-commerce application, or a component of the e-commerce application …” and “… The information presented may be helpful to the developers in evaluating the error and determining its causes and how best to fix it …” [0066 and 0112 and 0122-0123]).
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 Noivo with the customer session analysis system and method of Liberman Ben-Ami. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Noivo that doing so would allow errors to be corrected or mitigated more efficiently [0003].
As to claim 7, Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Noivo 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 Noivo 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. 2021/0142258 to Noivo et al. (Noivo), 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 Noivo teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Noivo 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 Noivo. 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 Noivo teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Liberman Ben-Ami in view of Noivo 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 Noivo. 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 Noivo 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 Noivo 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, Noivo 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 (“Note that the term ‘error’ as used herein should be interpreted broadly. ‘Errors’ include, but are not limited to, ‘bugs’, ‘glitches’, flaws in code, problems resulting from unexpected user input, logic errors, display errors, interface errors, status and/or network communication errors, and/or anything else that results in less-than-optimal performance of the computer system …” and “… The error evaluation computing device provides functionality for receiving session information from multiple different users and generating error reports that can be presented to a developer or developers of the e-commerce application, or a component of the e-commerce application …” and “… The information presented may be helpful to the developers in evaluating the error and determining its causes and how best to fix it …” [0066 and 0112 and 0122-0123]).
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 Noivo with the customer session analysis system and method of Liberman Ben-Ami. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Noivo that doing so would allow errors to be corrected or mitigated more efficiently [0003].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0295105 to Sharma et al. (Sharma) teaches, systems, methods, and computer-readable media for scoring an individual interaction session between a user and a software program.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0155522 to Thresh (Thresh) teaches, a method of software support. The method includes receiving a request for assistance for a selected device and analyzing an associated fault log for the selected device, where the associated fault log logging at least one fault. The method also includes determining at least one software release for the at least one fault.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0260818 to Ciabarra (Ciabarra) teaches, techniques for identifying issues related to digital interactions. For example, a detection system may be provided to analyze suspect sessions to determine if one or more stages associated with the suspect sessions are underperforming compared to corresponding stages associated with similar sessions.
U.S. Patent No. 11,294,741 to Aravabhumi et al. (Aravabhumi) teaches, systems and methods may facilitate acquisition, distribution, and analysis of information relating to technical events associated with client electronic computing devices within an organization (e.g., malfunctions and other performance issues of hardware and/or software).
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