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 .
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
… This general discussion of determining an error based on differences between visualizations of two images and informing a development team that an error exists in the images rendered does not suggest the classification of the rendering code itself as non-compliant due to "required assets [] not being properly registered with a software development kit," …
The applicant’s specification does not appear to provide an explicit description of how assets are “registered” with the SDK or how it is determined they are not “properly registered”. Tomay (e.g. col. 9, lines 48-61) discloses comparing assets in a captured “rendering tree” with a reference “rendering tree”. Given the lack of any additional details, examiner understands the inclusion in the rendering tree(s) to constitute a “registration” of the asset and differences in the trees to indicate that the assets were not “properly registered”. Accordingly, at least without additional detail this does not appear to describe a patentable distinction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10, 12, 14-15, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,164,874 to Tomay et al. (Tomay) in view of US 2007/0074167 to Cohrs et al. (Cohrs) in view of US 2015/0347274 to Taylor et al. (Taylor).
Claims 1, 8 and 15: Tomay discloses a method, comprising:
detecting, by a device, rendering of a digital component by an application executing on the device (col. 2, lines 56-58 “captures or obtains images of each page rendered on the test device during the testing”);
obtaining, from the application, a set of signals specifying rendering attributes of the digital component including at least first signals indicative of visible attributes of content assets that are included in the test digital component and second signals indicative of hierarchical associations between the content assets as rendered in the test digital component (col. 2, lines 56-63 “images of each page rendered … compared to reference images”, col. 15, lines 45-50 “in addition to capturing images … obtain and provide rendering information, such as a render tree”);
invoking, by the device, a validation process that compares the first signals and the second signals to a set of requirements that specify attributes of compliant digital components that comply with specifications for rendering by the application (col. 16, lines 2-6 “The rendering information from the reference content item may be compared directly with the rendering information from the tested content item”);
determining that the rendering code failed to generate the test digital component in compliance with the specifications based on the comparison (col. 16, lines 6-9 “compared to threshold levels for particular types of differences”); and
in response to determining that the one or more requirements are not met, providing, by the device, an alert indicating that the digital component fails to comply with the specifications (col. 16, lines 6-9 “flagged if the differences exceed the threshold(s)”):
classifying the rendering code as non-compliant rendering code based at least on determining that the required assets are not being properly registered with a software development kit (col. 18, lines 54-58 “comparing a render tree of the first version with a render tree of the second version”).
Tomay does not disclose:
a set of requirements that specify attributes of compliant digital components that comply with specifications of a digital component distribution system that provides content for rendering by the application.
Cohrs teaches:
invoking a validation process that compares signals to a set of requirements that specify attributes of compliant digital components that comply with specifications of a digital component distribution system that provides content for rendering by the application (par. [0013] “check accessibility requirements compliance … for each user interface element”).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to compare the first and second signals (Tomay col. 16, lines 2-6 “T the reference content item may be compared”) with specifications of a digital component distribution system (Cohrs par. [0013] “such as Section 508 compliance”). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to ensure the content complies with requirements set by the digital component distribution system.
Tomay and Cohrs do not explicitly teach:
providing, by the device, a non-compliant overlay that provides, within the application, an alert.
Taylor teaches:
providing, by a device, a non-compliant overlay that provides, within an application, an alert (par. [0129] “performance tips 218 are displayed in the editor”).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide a non-compliant overlay (e.g. Taylor par. [0129] “tool tips 501”) indicating the alert (Tomay col. 16, lines 6-9 “content may be flagged”). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as a known means of communicating the information to a user which would have produced only the expected results.
Claims 3, 10 and 17: Tomay, Cohrs and Taylor teach claims 1, 8 and 15, further comprising:
receiving, by a server, a request for content to provide to the application (Tomay col. 11, lines 18-20 “The user may further provide or identify a content item list 222 that identifies one or more content items that will be used during the testing”);
determining, by the server, that the request for content includes an identifier corresponding to a test environment (Tomay col. 11, lines 37-40 “takes in information about the test run, including identification of … the target platform”);
in response to determining that the request for content includes the identifier corresponding to the test environment, selecting, by the server, a test object including the content assets that are required to render the digital component (Tomay col. 11, lines 51-57 “the enqueuer 204 … retrieves configuration data 226 for each configuration … added to the queue 208”); and
providing, by the server, the test object to the device responsive to the content request (Tomay col. 12, lines 4-6 “The dequeuer 210 may … locate a capture task 238 to be performed by the test device … passed to the runner factory 212 … for executing the capture task”).
Claims 5, 12 and 19: Tomay, Cohrs and Taylor teach claims 1, 8 and 15, further comprising:
detecting interaction with the overlay (Taylor par. [0132] “the user can click on some performance tips”); and
in response to detecting interaction with the overlay, providing additional details regarding how the digital component fails to comply with the one or more requirements (Taylor par. [0132] “to see a more detailed breakdown 511”).
Claims 7, 14 and 21: Tomay, Cohrs and Tayler teach claims 1, 8 and 15, wherein:
obtaining a set of signals specifying rendering attributes of the digital component comprises obtaining a set of signals indicating a set of content assets included in the digital component; and
determining that one or more requirements are not met comprises
(i) determining that a particular view that includes the content assets has less than a specified size (col. 18, lines 56-61 “calculating a distance between the property value of each element”, col. 18, lines 64-66 “font size”), or
(ii) determining that one or more of the content assets are located outside of boundaries of the particular view.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,164,874 to Tomay et al. (Tomay) in view of US 2007/0074167 to Cohrs et al. (Cohrs) in view of US 2015/0347274 to Taylor et al. (Taylor).
Claims 2, 9 and 16: Tomay, Cohrs and Taylor teach claims 1, 8 and 15, further comprising:
receiving, from the device, a request for content to provide to the application (Tomay col. 11, lines 18-20 “The user may further provide or identify a content item list 222 that identifies one or more content items that will be used during the testing”);
selecting, by the server, a test object including the content assets that are required to render the digital component based on the device being identified as a test device (Tomay col. 11, lines 51-57 “the enqueuer 204 … retrieves configuration data 226 for each configuration … added to the queue 208”); and
providing, by the server, the test object to the device responsive to the request for content based on the device being identified as a test device (Tomay col. 12, lines 4-6 “The dequeuer 210 may … locate a capture task 238 to be performed by the test device … passed to the runner factory 212 … for executing the capture task”).
Tomay, Cohrs and Taylor do not teach:
receiving, by a server, a registration message identifying the device as a test device for the application.
Alam teaches
receiving, by a server, a registration message identifying a device as a test device (par. [0035] “the hardware test device is registered with a distributed server system”).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to register the device as a test device (Alam par. [0035] “the hardware test device is registered”). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to control access to the system.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,164,874 to Tomay et al. (Tomay) in view of US 2007/0074167 to Cohrs et al. (Cohrs) in view of US 2015/0347274 to Taylor et al. (Taylor) in view of US 9,218,267 to Keller (Keller).
Claims 4, 11 and 18: Tomay, Cohrs and Taylor teach claims 1, 8 and 15 wherein invoking, by the device, a validation process that compares the first signals and the second signals to a set of requirements comprises requesting execution of the validation process (col. 12, lines 40-42 “the runner 214 can also enqueue a corresponding compare task to a compare queue, as indicated at 312”).
Tomay, Cohrs and Taylor do not explicitly teach
execution of a validation process by a script instantiated at launch of the application.
Keller teaches
execution of a validation process by a script instantiated at launch of the application (col. 12, line 63-65 “sending a page component and a script to a rendering device”, col. 12, lines 5-10 “receiving feedback form the script”).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to execute the validation process by a script (Keller col. 12, line 5-10 “feedback from the script”). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as a known alternate means of performing the validation which would have produced only the expected results (Keller col. 12, line 5-10 “feedback from the script”, Tomay col. 12, lines 8-11 “a new instance of a runner 214 is created for executing the capture task”).
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,164,874 to Tomay et al. (Tomay) in view of US 2007/0074167 to Cohrs et al. (Cohrs) in view of US 2015/0347274 to Taylor et al. (Taylor) in view of US 2021/0303446 to Sukhyani (Sukhyani).
Claims 6, 13 and 20: Tomay, Cohrs and Taylor teach claims 1, 8 and 15, but do not explicitly teach:
obtaining, by the device, a document from a specified location; and
populating the document with information indicating that the digital component fails to comply with the one or more requirements.
Sukhyani teaches:
obtaining, by the device, a document from a specified location (par. [0010] “selecting … an issue report template”); and
populating the document with information indicating that the digital component fails to comply with the one or more requirements (par. [0010] “populating … the selected issue report template with the tagged debug information”).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to obtain and populate a document with information indicating the digital component fails (Sukhyani par. [0010] “populating … the selected issue report”, Tomay col. 16, lines 6-9 “content may be flagged”). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as an alternate means of communicating the information.
Conclusion
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 JASON D MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)272-3728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 7:00am - 4:30pm and alternate Fridays 7:00am 3:30pm.
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 at (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 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.
/JASON D MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights