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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12, 14-26 and 28-30 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 17 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s specification failed to disclose “wherein the API is configured to process structured text formats comprising one or more of Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), HTML fragments, Extensible Markup Language (XML), or JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)” as recited in claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-26 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US PG Pub. 2024/0039873 to Durairaj et al. (hereafter Durairaj).
Durairaj was cited in applicant’s IDS filed on 6/3/26.
As to claim 1, Durairaj teaches the invention as claimed including a system [system 100, Fig. 1 and corresponding text] for providing a simulated browsing session, the system comprising:
an artificial intelligence (AI) controlled agent [paragraph [0062], lines 12-14, chat bots leveraging artificial intelligence (AI), AI-powered bots to handle co-browse sessions];
a cloud browser [paragraph [0070], lines 1-3, a co-browse script executes intent configuration file for a chat bot to complete a co-browse session; paragraph [0081], computing elements being implemented in cloud-based or cloud computing environment];
an application programming interface (API) [paragraph [0065], lines 3-4, intent classification application programming interface (API); paragraph [0119], lines 11-13, media augmentation system 316 may be embodied as or include an application program interface (API)); and
a processor [paragraph [0011], lines 1-7, system including at least one processor; paragraph [0123], one or more processors executing computer program instructions and interacting with other system components for performing the various functionalities described herein] configured to:
autonomously determine, using the first AI controlled agent, an online action for advancing an online task that is described by at least one of the AI controlled agent or a human user device that is interacting with the AI controlled agent [paragraph [0144], determining whether an incomplete co-browse session is stored by accessing a database, and if the user opts to resume an incomplete co-browse session, the system determines that it needs to retrieve an intent configuration file; paragraphs [0066-0070], the system determines the online action of retrieving the configuration file based on the user/user device interacting with the AI-leveraged chat bot];
select, based on the online action, at least one of the cloud browser, the API, or the human user device for executing the online action;
wherein the online action is at least one of: (i) executed by the system using one or both of the cloud browser or the API, (ii) executed locally on the human user device, or (iii) executed in part by the system using one or both of the cloud browser or the API and executed in part locally on the human user device [paragraphs [0066-0070, 0119 and 0144], upon user device interaction with AI-leverage chat bot opting in to resume an incomplete co-browse session, the system determines to retrieve the intent configuration file from the intent configuration data store 110. This access would utilize the media augmentation system 316 which amounts to an API, in order to access the information from the database/data structure. Therefore, upon a determination of an incomplete co-browse session and the user opting in, the system selects both the chatbot/co-browse script and API for executing the online action].
As to claim 2, Durairaj teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the online action is determined autonomously by the AI controlled agent as a prediction based on the online task [intent recognition based on models or predictors, paragraphs [0100 and 0102]].
As to claim 3, Durairaj teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the system supports interaction by a user of the human user device with the AI controlled agent using one or more of an online application or an online device [interaction between user of a user device and AI-leverage chatbot/cloud-based system via cloud-based devices/components and applications, paragraphs [0066-0070]].
As to claim 4, Durairaj teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the one or more of the online application or the online device comprises at least one of a web browser, a computer application, a mobile application, or a web-enabled device [paragraph [0066]].
As to claim 5, Durairaj teaches the invention as claimed including, wherein the system enables the user to communicate with the AI controlled agent using one or more of a plurality of communication modalities [communicating with AI-leverage chatbot via chat-based, text-based, voice-based communication, paragraphs [0065 and 0067-0069]].
As to claim 6, Durairaj teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the one or more of the plurality of communication modalities comprise of at least one of text, speech by the user, direction by an automated device, or imagery [communicating with AI-leverage chatbot via chat-based, text-based, voice-based communication, paragraphs [0065 and 0067-0069]].
As to claim 7, Durairaj teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the processor is further configured to: use the AI controlled agent to continue autonomously determining additional online actions for advancing the online task until a condition is satisfied [paragraphs [0005 and 0138], intent configuration file include one or more sequences of the various actions (e.g., mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and/or other actions) to be executed by the chat bot in order to automatically resolve the user intent].
As to claim 8, Durairaj teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the condition comprises completion of the online task [paragraphs [0005 and 0138], intent configuration file include one or more sequences of the various actions (e.g., mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and/or other actions) to be executed by the chat bot in order to automatically resolve the user intent; completing all action from intent configuration file, completion of co-browser session, paragraph 71].
As to claim 9, Durairaj teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the cloud browser comprises at least one of a visual browser or a textual browser [paragraph [0070], lines 1-3, a co-browse script executes intent configuration file for a chat bot to complete a co-browse session; paragraph [0081], computing elements being implemented in cloud-based or cloud computing environment], and wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, as a result of executing the online action at least in part using the cloud browser, at least one of predictive data or perceptual data; and autonomously determine, using the AI controlled agent, another online action for advancing the online task based on the at least one of the predictive data or the perceptual data [paragraphs [0005 and 0138], intent configuration file include one or more sequences of the various actions (e.g., mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and/or other actions), such that completion of one action can sequentially leads to the input/perception of another action such as text entry to be executed by the chat bot in order to automatically resolve the user intent; paragraph [0071], completing all action from intent configuration file, completion of co-browser session].
As to claim 10, Durairaj teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the at least one of the predictive data or the perceptual data includes one or more forms of visual data [paragraphs [0005 and 0138], intent configuration file include one or more sequences of the various actions (e.g., mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and/or other actions)].
As to claim 11, Durairaj teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the at least one of the predictive data or the perceptual data includes one or more of an image, a screenshot, audio, video, text, a frame, or semantic data [paragraphs [0005 and 0138], intent configuration file include one or more sequences of the various actions (e.g., mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and/or other actions)].
As to claim 12, Durairaj teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the cloud browser comprises a trained machine learning (ML) model, and wherein the processor is further configured to: process, using the trained ML model of the cloud browser, the at least one of the predictive data or the perceptual data to provide an interpretation of the at least one of the predictive data or the perceptual data [paragraphs 23-25, machine learning used in determining optimal solution for solving user intent in generating intent configuration file used by co-browse script in conjunction with other components of the system; paragraphs [0005 and 0138], intent configuration file include one or more sequences of the various actions (e.g., mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and/or other actions), such that completion of one action can sequentially leads to the input/perception of another action such as text entry to be executed by the chat bot in order to automatically resolve the user intent; paragraph [0071], completing all action from intent configuration file, completion of co-browser session]; wherein the another online action is autonomously determined using the AI controlled agent based on the interpretation of the at least one of the predictive data or the perceptual data [intent recognition based on models or predictors, paragraphs [0100 and 0102]; paragraphs [0066-0070], the system determines the online action of retrieving the configuration file based on the user/user device interacting with the AI-leveraged chat bot; paragraphs [0005 and 0138], intent configuration file include one or more sequences of the various actions (e.g., mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and/or other actions) to be executed by the chat bot in order to automatically resolve the user intent].
As to claim 14, Durairaj teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the cloud browser comprises of at least one of a visual browser or a textual browser, and wherein the processor is further configured to: receive at least one of frame data or raw data generated as a result of executing the online action using the cloud browser; and autonomously determine, using the AI controlled agent, another online action for advancing the online task based on the at least one of the frame data or the raw data [paragraphs [0005 and 0138], intent configuration file include one or more sequences of the various actions (e.g., mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and/or other actions)] (Note: the examiner is taking the position that completion of any actions produces or receive data/indication in the perspective of the AI controlled agent advancing the online task in performing the next online action in the sequence).
As to claim 15, Durairaj teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the cloud browser comprises a trained machine learning (ML) model, and wherein the processor is further configured to: process, using the trained ML model of the cloud browser, the at least one of the frame data or the raw data to provide a prediction based on the at least one of the frame data or the raw data [paragraphs 23-25, machine learning used in determining optimal solution for solving user intent in generating intent configuration file used by co-browse script; paragraphs [0005 and 0138], intent configuration file include one or more sequences of the various actions (e.g., mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and/or other actions), such that completion of one action can sequentially leads to the input/perception of another action such as text entry to be executed by the chat bot in order to automatically resolve the user intent; paragraph [0071], completing all action from intent configuration file, completion of co-browser session]; wherein the another online action is autonomously determined using the AI controlled agent based on the prediction [intent recognition based on models or predictors, paragraphs [0100 and 0102]; paragraphs [0066-0070], the system determines the online action of retrieving the configuration file based on the user/user device interacting with the AI-leveraged chat bot; paragraphs [0005 and 0138], intent configuration file include one or more sequences of the various actions (e.g., mouse movements/interactions, screen pointers, screen changes, audio/video instructions, text entry, and/or other actions) to be executed by the chat bot in order to automatically resolve the user intent].
As to claim 16, Durairaj teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the processor is further configured to: maintain a record of the simulated browsing session identifying each online action that is executed during the simulated browsing session as one of (i) executed by the system using one or both of the cloud browser or the API, (ii) executed locally on the human user device, or (iii) executed in part by the system using one or both of the cloud browser or the API and executed in part locally on the human user device [paragraphs [0069, 0071, 0073], monitor and record web actions/interactions and store in a database].
As to claim 17, Durairaj teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the API is configured to process structured text formats comprising one or more of Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), HTML fragments, Extensible Markup Language (XML), or JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) [paragraphs [0118-0119], voice gateway processing voice program written in scripting language such as voice XML in which the media augmentation system specify how portions of the cloud-based system including the voice gateway interact with each other by embodying or including an API].
As to claims 18-26 and 28-30, Durairaj teaches the system for performing the method of providing a simulated browsing session as recited in claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 14-16, therefore Durairaj teaches the method performed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/11/26 have been fully considered.
Replacement drawings filed on 9/11/26 overcome the drawings objection.
Applicant’s remark pertaining to the specification is persuasive, therefore the objection to the specification is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s remark pertaining to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph rejection of claims 2 and 19 is persuasive such that the specification’s description of ML processing/functionality “that determines and take an action on the basis of a partial input pattern” in producing an output is inherently a prediction, therefore the rejection of claims 2 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s remark pertaining to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph rejection of claims 9-11, 14-15, 24-25 and 28-29 is persuasive, therefore the rejection of claims 9-11, 14-15, 24-25 and 28-29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph is hereby withdrawn.
Rejections of claims 12 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph are overcome in light of applicant’s amendment.
In the remarks, Applicant argued in substance that:
Pertaining to claim 17, a person of ordinary skill in the art understands that a Server Side REST API, in accordance with longstanding and well settled convention, exchanges and processes structured text formats, most commonly JSON and XML. A person of ordinary skill in the art likewise understands that the web content into which the described Server Side API preloads pre-existing form inputs and settings comprises HTML.
Durairaj serves just as a client side solution which does not contain a cloud browser that “serves as the component that actually fetches the online content while replicating and executing the individual online interactions of the leader(s) that take place within said pages or other forms of content while then rendering and encoding the individual frames that are fed into encoder l06” as stated in the specification, whereas the browsing environment in Durairaj is a standard browser that is running on the user device or on the agent device.
Examiner respectfully traversed Applicant's remarks:
As to point (a), the examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that while the examiner recognized HTML, JSON and XML are common language, file and/or transmission format, the exchanging and processing structured text formats via a Server Side REST API being configured to process the specific structured text formats are neither implicit nor inherent, therefore applicant’s argument is not persuasive. See MPEP 2163 (I) (A) regarding written description requirement of original claims.
As to point (b), the examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that since there is no specific definition or standard that defines a cloud browser, the examiner gave the limitation the broadest reasonable interpretation of a web browser/application that runs on a remote computer or the cloud instead of locally with respect to an user device. Since the agent device can include the UI in co-browsing and capturing of DOM elements of a web page and web actions performed by the agent during the agent-led co-browse session as being taught by Durairaj [paragraph 94, lines 14-17; paragraph 105] which clearly shows that the browser is not limited to a local browser of the user device as argued, applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Furthermore, as pointed out by the examiner, Durairaj disclosed that any computing elements described can be implemented in cloud-based or cloud computing environment [paragraph [0081], such that the agent device or any device performing browsing or co-browsing function can be on the cloud with respective to the user device. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., specific features or functions of a “cloud browser”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 QING YUAN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-3776. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QING YUAN WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
