DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination based on the amended claims in the application filed on July 24, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zou, Yunxiao, Zhenyu Chen, Yunhui Zheng, Xiangyu Zhang, and Zebao Gao. “Virtual DOM coverage for effective testing of dynamic web applications.” In Proceedings of the 2014 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pp. 60-70. 2014 [herein “Zou”] in view of Mesbah, Ali, Arie Van Deursen, and Stefan Lenselink. “Crawling Ajax-based web applications through dynamic analysis of user interface state changes.” ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB) 6, no. 1 (2012): 1-30 [herein “Mesbah”].
This action is made Final.
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 Amendment
The amendment filed July 24, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 24, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informality: recitations of elements with a previous recitation. For example, claim 1, “a URL change” in Ln. 13, is improper because there has been a previous recitation of “a URL change” in Ln. 10-11. For the purpose of examination, “a URL change” will be
interpreted as “the URL change”. Claims 10 and 19, having similar limitations of claim 1, are also objected. Claims 2-9, claims 11-18, and claim 20 are also objected to for incorporating the deficiency of its dependent claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, and it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of a process; claims 10-18 are directed to an apparatus and fall within the statutory category of a machine; and claims 19-20 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 10, and 19: The limitations of:
“determining, from a configuration corresponding to a web document, a set of interactable elements that are configured to cause a UI state change to a UI of the web document”,
“generating, in a graphical node representation and in response to the interacting, a first set of nodes of a first node type and a second set of nodes of a second node type, wherein the first set of nodes of the first node type correspond to a first UI state change resulting from a universal resource locator (URL) change, and wherein the second set of nodes of the second node type correspond to a second UI state change resulting from a visual effect on the UI without a URL change”, and
“generating a computer readable record indicating a sequence of interactions to generate the graphical node representation” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, the limitations can be conducted as the following:
a person can mentally recognize or draw with pen and paper a set of interactable elements such as hyperlinks, drop down menus, and buttons on a webpage that can display changes on a web page,
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a node graph containing the set of and relationship between interactable elements where the interactable elements create URL changes such as a clicked hyperlink to load new webpages as well as can create only visual changes on the webpage such as a drop down menus, and
a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a set of steps to lead to a particular action on a drop down menu such as selecting parent node A then selecting child node B in a computer readable format for a computer to display a node graph of the particular action.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claims 1, 10, and 19 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 10, and 19: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: “by the UI state mapper program”, “An apparatus for mapping user interface (UI) states, comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor”, and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for mapping user interface (UI) states, the code comprising instructions executable by a processor” which are merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. Further, the following additional element of “interacting, by a UI state mapper program, with the set of interactable elements of the UI, the interacting comprising: activating one or more interactable elements of the UI, wherein activation of at least one first interactable element of the one or more interactable elements causes a first UI state change resulting from a universal resource locator (URL) change, and wherein activation of at least one second interactable element of the one or more interactable elements causes a second UI state change resulting from a visual effect on the UI without a URL change” which is merely a recitation of a computer functions that is well‐understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. This additional element is further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 10, and 19 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 10, and 19: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the additional element of “interacting, by a UI state mapper program, with the set of interactable elements of the UI, the interacting comprising: activating one or more interactable elements of the UI, wherein activation of at least one first interactable element of the one or more interactable elements causes a first UI state change resulting from a universal resource locator (URL) change, and wherein activation of at least one second interactable element of the one or more interactable elements causes a second UI state change resulting from a visual effect on the UI without a URL change” which is merely a recitation of a computer function that is well‐understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. vi. A Web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”). Furthermore, automatically interacting with a webpage has been shown in the art to also be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see US 2021/0311862 A Para. 0003, “Web interface automation applications, for example, SeleniumTM, have been increasingly used for automating user interaction of web applications within a web browser for testing purposes. For example, Selenium WebDriver™ provides an Application Programming Interface (API) for users to define how to interact with the web application, such as clicking on a page element or typing into a text field”).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 10, and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, they recite an additional limitation of “wherein the graphical node representation comprises a first interaction path and a second interaction path”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a node graph that includes a path from parent node A to child node B and a path from child node B to parent node A.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 2, 11 and 20, they recite an additional element recitation of “wherein the instructions to interact are executable by the processor” is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2, 11, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, they recite additional element recitations of “traversing the first interaction path, the first interaction path comprising at least one node from the second set of nodes” and “traversing the second interaction path based at least in part on returning to a nearest ancestral node of the first node type at an end of the first interaction path”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a node graph that includes a path from parent node A to child node B and a path from child node B to parent node A, where a child node B is the final node in a drop down menu of a parent node A.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 3 and 12, it recites additional element recitations of “by the UI state mapper program” and “wherein the instructions to interact are executable by the processor” is merely are a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3 and 12 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, they recite an additional element recitation of “recording a UI state of at least one node of the first set of nodes and the second set of nodes in the graphical node representation, wherein the recorded UI state is associated with a set of interactions of the sequence of interactions indicated by the computer readable record”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person draw with pen and paper the instance of a webpage following a set of actions to lead to a particular action such as a hyperlink on a drop down menu.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 4 and 13, they recite an additional element recitation of “wherein the instructions to interact are executable by the processor” is merely are a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4 and 13 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, they recite an additional element recitation of “obtaining a screenshot of the UI state of the at least one node”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person draw with pen and paper an instance of a webpage being a website that contains a hyperlink.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 5 and 14, they recite an additional element recitation of “displaying, via a graphical UI, the screenshot of the UI state of the at least one node” is merely are a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and merely an insignificant extra-solution data outputting activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5 and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, they recite an additional element recitation of “recording the user input with the UI state of the at least one node”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person draw with pen and paper the instance of a webpage following a set of actions to lead to a particular action such as a hyperlink on a drop down menu as well as the response for an individual indicating that the access to hyperlink reveals a security concern.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 6 and 15, they recite additional element recitations of “displaying, to a user via a graphical UI, the recorded UI state of the at least one node” and “receiving a user input indicating a privacy status of the at least one node, a security status of the at least one node, an accessibility status of the at least one node, or any combination thereof” is merely are a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and merely an insignificant extra-solution data outputting and data gathering activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Furthermore, the additional element recitation of “wherein the instructions to interact are executable by the processor” is merely are a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, they recite additional element recitations of “traversing at least a portion of the graphical node representation in accordance with the sequence of interactions by the UI state mapper program to obtain an end-to-end execution time for the graphical node representation, an interaction path of the graphical node representation, or at least a portion of the sequence of interactions” and “outputting a duration corresponding to the traversal of at least the portion of the graphical node representation”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a node graph that includes a path from parent node A to child node B and a path from child node B to parent node A, where a child node B is the final node in a drop down menu of a parent node A, and a person can mentally record or draw with pen and paper the total time to complete a particular action on a drop down menu such as selecting parent node A then selecting child node B to generate a new webpage.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 7 and 16, they recite an additional element recitation of “wherein the instructions to interact are executable by the processor” is merely are a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 7 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, they recite an additional element recitation of “identifying one or more iFrames within the web document, one or more shadow document object models (DOMs), or both”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally recognize or draw with pen and paper a set of interactable elements such as hyperlinks embedded in an advertisement on a web page.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 8 and 17, they recite an additional element recitation of “wherein the instructions to interact are executable by the processor” is merely are a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 8 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, they recite an additional element recitation of “wherein the graphical node representation comprises a tree data structure”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a node graph tree containing the sets of and relationships between interactable elements where the interactable elements can create URL changes such as a clicked hyperlink to load new webpages as well as well as can create only visual changes on the webpage such as a drop down menus.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Furthermore, regarding claims 9 and 18, they recite an additional element recitation of “wherein the instructions to interact are executable by the processor” is merely are a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, these claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, these claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 9 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their dependent claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zou, Yunxiao, Zhenyu Chen, Yunhui Zheng, Xiangyu Zhang, and Zebao Gao. “Virtual DOM coverage for effective testing of dynamic web applications.” In Proceedings of the 2014 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pp. 60-70. 2014 [herein “Zou”] in view of Mesbah, Ali, Arie Van Deursen, and Stefan Lenselink. “Crawling Ajax-based web applications through dynamic analysis of user interface state changes.” ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB) 6, no. 1 (2012): 1-30 [herein “Mesbah”].
As per claim 1, Zou teaches “A method for mapping user interface (UI) states, comprising: determining, from a configuration corresponding to a web document, a set of interactable elements that are configured to cause a UI state change to a UI of the web document”. (Pg. 61 Sect. 1, “In this paper, we propose a novel coverage criterion: Virtual Document Object Model (V-DOM) coverage. Webpages are represented as DOM trees internally by a browser. The root of a tree represents the whole document (i.e. the page). Other objects such as frames, text-boxes and buttons are organized as a tree based on their nesting structure. In some sense, we could consider that each page displayed to the client is essentially a DOM tree. A V-DOM tree is a logical aggregation of all the possible DOM trees produced by a server script… To construct the V-DOM tree of a server script, we perform static analysis on the server-side code (e.g., PHP) to identify all the possible DOM objects that could be emitted by the server code to the page returned to the client, and organize them in a tree just like a real DOM tree”. [A method for mapping user interface (UI) states, comprising: determining, from a configuration corresponding to a web document, a set of interactable elements]. Pg. 63-64 Sect. 3, “user can interact with a web application by operating on user controls such as buttons or typing in text-boxes. These actions can trigger events that may potentially change the execution state. We call a DOM object that has event listeners attached an interactive object” [a set of interactable elements that are configured to cause a UI state change to a UI of the web document]. Further see Sect. 1 and 3. The examiner has interpreted that constructing a virtual document object model (V-DOM) coverage for webpages where user interactable DOM objects that change the execution state of the web application are identified to construct DOM trees as a method for mapping user interface (UI) states, comprising: determining, from a configuration corresponding to a web document, a set of interactable elements that are configured to cause a UI state change to a UI of the web document.)
Zou teaches “generating, in a graphical node representation and in response to the interacting, a first set of nodes of a first node type and a second set of nodes of a second node type, wherein the first set of nodes of the first node type correspond to the first UI state change resulting from the URL change, and wherein the second set of nodes of the second node type correspond to the second UI state change resulting from the visual effect on the UI without a URL change”. (Pg. 64 Sect. 4, “Alg. 1 describes the V-DOM tree construction algorithm. Its input is the program analysis results obtained in the previous step, including the CFGs and data dependences of the translated program. Its output is a virtual HTML page, which is essentially the V-DOM tree” [generating, in a graphical node representation and in response to the interacting]. Pg. 63 Sect. 3, “Definition 1. Given a server script P, its V-DOM tree is a tree {N,E} satisfying the following conditions. A node n ∈ N if and only if in some execution of P, a DOM object n appears in the generated client page; An edge n →m ∈ E if and only if in some execution of P, the DOM object m directly resides in another DOM object n in the generated client page” [generating a set of nodes]. Pg. 63 Sect. 3, “During web application execution, a piece of server script may generate many different client pages (or DOM trees). These pages are the results of both client-side and server side executions. We introduce Virtual DOM (V-DOM) tree to denote the universal set of all such pages, which essentially encodes the universe of possible executions on both sides”. Pg. 61 Sect. 1, “In this paper, we propose a novel coverage criterion: Virtual Document Object Model (V-DOM) coverage. Webpages are represented as DOM trees internally by a browser. The root of a tree represents the whole document (i.e. the page). Other objects such as frames, text-boxes and buttons are organized as a tree based on their nesting structure. In some sense, we could consider that each page displayed to the client is essentially a DOM tree. A V-DOM tree is a logical aggregation of all the possible DOM trees produced by a server script” [generating a set of nodes that show all webpages, e.g., wherein the first set of nodes of the first node type correspond to the first UI state change resulting from the URL change]. Pg. 63 Sect. 3, “The PHP script enclosed has two execution paths. Depending on the value of $p, the script may emit a button or a table including a button to the result client page” [e.g., a drop down menu, wherein the second set of nodes of the second node type correspond to the second UI state change resulting from the visual effect on the UI without a URL change]. Further see Sect. 1 & 3. The examiner has interpreted that constructing a V-DOM tree coverage from the control flow graphs and data dependences consisting of nodes of DOM objects in all different webpages and tables as generating, in a graphical node representation and in response to the interacting, a first set of nodes of a first node type and a second set of nodes of a second node type, wherein the first set of nodes of the first node type correspond to the first UI state change resulting the URL change, and wherein the second set of nodes of the second node type correspond to the second UI state change resulting from the visual effect on the UI without a URL change.)
Zou teaches “generating a computer readable record indicating a sequence of interactions by the UI state mapper program to generate the graphical node representation.” (Pg. 66 Sect. 4, “In the previous LLVM analysis phase, an analysis log record is generated, which contains CFG and data dependence information. The CFGs of the two functions are showed in figure (b). According to Alg. 1, the CFG of the main function is traversed in the topological order. As such, in the resulting page in figure (c), the first two lines of the client page are emitted as in a real execution”. As shown below, Fig. 1 is Fig. 5 from Zou which shows the computer readable codes for constructing the V-DOM, e.g., generating a computer readable record indicating a sequence of interactions by the UI state mapper program to generate the graphical node representation.)
PNG
media_image1.png
534
931
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: V-DOM Construction Example
Zou does not specifically teach “interacting, by a UI state mapper program, with the set of interactable elements of the UI, the interacting comprising: activating one or more interactable elements of the UI, wherein activation of at least one first interactable element of the one or more interactable elements causes a first UI state change resulting from a universal resource locator (URL) change, and wherein activation of at least one second interactable element of the one or more interactable elements causes a second UI state change resulting from a visual effect on the UI without a URL change”.
However, in the same field of endeavor namely creating node graphs of UI states, Mesbah teaches “interacting, by a UI state mapper program, with the set of interactable elements of the UI, the interacting comprising: activating one or more interactable elements of the UI, wherein activation of at least one first interactable element of the one or more interactable elements causes a first UI state change resulting from a universal resource locator (URL) change, and wherein activation of at least one second interactable element of the one or more interactable elements causes a second UI state change resulting from a visual effect on the UI without a URL change”. (Pg. 3 Sect. 1, “we propose an approach for analyzing these user interface states automatically. Our approach is based on a crawler that can exercise client-side code and identify clickable elements (which may change with every click) that change the state within the browser’s dynamically built DOM. From these state changes, we infer a state-flow graph, which captures the states of the user interface and the possible transitions between them. The underlying ideas have been implemented in an open source tool called CRAWLJAX…The ability to automatically exercise all the executable elements of an AJAX site gives us a powerful test mechanism.” [interacting, by a UI state mapper program, with the set of interactable elements of the UI, the interacting comprising: activating one or more interactable elements of the UI]. Pg. 5 Sect. 3, “On the browser, the end user can interact with the Web application through the user interface by clicking on an element, bringing the mouse-pointer over an element, and so on. These actions can cause events that, as just described, can potentially change the state of the application” [wherein activation of at least one first interactable element of the one or more interactable elements causes a first UI state change resulting from a universal resource locator (URL) change, and wherein activation of at least one second interactable element of the one or more interactable elements causes a second UI state change resulting from a visual effect on the UI without a URL change]. Further see Sect. 1-3. The examiner has interpreted that automatically exercising code to execute elements of an AJAX through a CRAWLJAX to identify and execute clickable elements and a mouse-point over an element that can change the state of the application as interacting, by a UI state mapper program, with the set of interactable elements of the UI, the interacting comprising: activating one or more interactable elements of the UI, wherein activation of at least one first interactable element of the one or more interactable elements causes a first UI state change resulting from a universal resource locator (URL) change, and wherein activation of at least one second interactable element of the one or more interactable elements causes a second UI state change resulting from a visual effect on the UI without a URL change.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “interacting, by a UI state mapper program, with the set of interactable elements of the UI, the interacting comprising: activating one or more interactable elements of the UI, wherein activation of at least one first interactable element of the one or more interactable elements causes a first UI state change resulting from a universal resource locator (URL) change, and wherein activation of at least one second interactable element of the one or more interactable elements causes a second UI state change resulting from a visual effect on the UI without a URL change” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Mesbah, into that of Zou because this modification of generating dynamic interactions in the elements of the UI for the advantageous purpose of finding abnormalities and errors in between UI states in dynamic UI elements as well as dynamically identify runtime changes in the browser DOM tree (Mesbah, Pg. 2, 4, and 17). Further motivation to combine be that Zou and Mesbah are analogous art to the current claim directed to creating node graphs of UI states.
As per claim 2, Zou teaches “wherein the graphical node representation comprises a first interaction path and a second interaction path.” (Pg. 61 Sect. 1, “In this paper, we propose a novel coverage criterion: Virtual Document Object Model (V-DOM) coverage. Webpages are represented as DOM trees internally by a browser. The root of a tree represents the whole document (i.e. the page). Other objects such as frames, text-boxes and buttons are organized as a tree based on their nesting structure. In some sense, we could consider that each page displayed to the client is essentially a DOM tree” [the graphical node representation]. Pg. 63 Sect. 3, “The PHP script enclosed has two execution paths. Depending on the value of $p, the script may emit a button or a table including a button to the result client page” [wherein the graphical node representation comprises a first interaction path and a second interaction path]. Further see Sect. 1 & 3. The examiner has interpreted that constructing a virtual document object model (V-DOM) coverage for webpages that have an execution path that emits a button to a client page and an execution path that emits a table including a button to a client page as wherein the graphical node representation comprises a first interaction path and a second interaction path.)
As per claim 3, Zou teaches “wherein the interacting comprises: traversing, by the UI state mapper program, the first interaction path, the first interaction path comprising at least one node from the second set of nodes”. (Pg. 63 Sect. 3, “The PHP script enclosed has two execution paths. Depending on the value of $p, the script may emit a button or a table including a button to the result client page” [wherein the graphical node representation comprises a first interaction path and a second interaction path]. Pg. 64 Sect. 4, “In the second step, we leverage LLVM [2] to perform control-flow and data-flow analysis on the translated programs. Control-flow analysis is needed to construct the control flow graphs (CFGs) which will be used in V-DOM tree construction. Data-flow analysis is needed to detect data dependences, especially those that are related to the strings emitted by print statements in server scripts. Note that the essence of server script execution is to compose the client page from strings that may come from user inputs or databases. Data dependences would be helpful in figuring out the possible string values at print statements and hence the possible DOM objects” [traversing, by the UI state mapper program, the first interaction path, the first interaction path comprising at least one node from the second set of nodes]. Further see Sect. 3-4. The examiner has interpreted that performing a control flow analysis to compose client pages that come from user inputs in finding the all possible DOM objects including a table that includes a button to a result page as wherein the interacting comprises: traversing, by the UI state mapper program, the first interaction path, the first interaction path comprising at least one node from the second set of nodes.)
Zou does not specifically teach “traversing, by the UI state mapper program, the second interaction path based at least in part on returning to a nearest ancestral node of the first node type at an end of the first interaction path.”
However, Mesbah teaches “traversing, by the UI state mapper program, the second interaction path based at least in part on returning to a nearest ancestral node of the first node type at an end of the first interaction path.” (Pg. 11 Sect. 3, “Figure 5 shows an example of how our backtracking mechanism operates. Lets assume that we have taken the (E_1, E_3, E_4, E_5) path and have landed on state S_5. From S_5, our algorithm knows that there are no candidate clickables left in states S_4 and S_3 by keeping the track of examined elements” [at an end of the first interaction path]. “S_1, however, does contain an unexamined clickable element. The dotted line annotated with 1 shows our desired path for backtracking to this relevant previous state. To go from S_5 to S_1,the algorithm reloads the browser so that it lands on the index state, and from there it fires an event on the clickable E_1” [traversing, by the UI state mapper program, the second interaction path based at least in part on returning to a nearest ancestral node of the first node type]. Further see Sect. 3 and Fig. 5 as reproduced below as Fig. 2. The examiner has interpreted that backtracking to the index state that contains an unexamined clickable element after discover no further candidate clickables left in the path as traversing, by the UI state mapper program, the second interaction path based at least in part on returning to a nearest ancestral node of the first node type at an end of the first interaction path.)
PNG
media_image2.png
544
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Backtracking to the previous relevant state
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “traversing, by the UI state mapper program, the second interaction path based at least in part on returning to a nearest ancestral node of the first node type at an end of the first interaction path” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Mesbah, into that of Zou because this modification of returning to the node having unexamined nodes after reaching the end in a path for the advantageous purpose of completing all paths and determining all states of a webpage (Mesbah, Pg. 10 and 13). Further motivation to combine be that Zou and Mesbah are analogous art to the current claim directed to creating node graphs of UI states.
As per claim 4, Zou teaches “recording a UI state of at least one node of the first set of nodes and the second set of nodes in the graphical node representation, wherein the recorded UI state is associated with a set of interactions of the sequence of interactions indicated by the computer readable record.” (Pg. 63-64 Sect. 3, “user can interact with a web application by operating on user controls such as buttons or typing in text-boxes. These actions can trigger events that may potentially change the execution state. We call a DOM object that has event listeners attached an interactive object” [a UI state]. Pg. 62 Sect. 2, “Control-flow and Data-flow Analysis. In this step, static control-flow and data-flow analyses are preformed on the translated C code to identify and extract all DOM objects that may be emitted by a script. The output in this step is an analysis record file.” Pg. 66 Sect. 4, “In the previous LLVM analysis phase, an analysis log record is generated, which contains CFG and data dependence information. The CFGs of the two functions are showed in figure (b). According to Alg. 1, the CFG of the main function is traversed in the topological order. As such, in the resulting page in figure (c), the first two lines of the client page are emitted as in a real execution” [recording a UI state of at least one node of the first set of nodes and the second set of nodes in the graphical node representation, wherein the recorded UI state is associated with a set of interactions of the sequence of interactions indicated by the computer readable record]. Further see Sect. 2-4. The examiner has interpreted that recording the control flow analysis of DOM objects where user interactable DOM objects that change the execution state of the web application as computer readable codes for constructing the V-DOM as recording a UI state of at least one node of the first set of nodes and the second set of nodes in the graphical node representation, wherein the recorded UI state is associated with a set of interactions of the sequence of interactions indicated by the computer readable record.)
As per claim 5, Zou does not specifically teach “obtaining a screenshot of the UI state of the at least one node; and displaying, via a graphical UI, the screenshot of the UI state of the at least one node.”
However, Mesbah teaches “obtaining a screenshot of the UI state of the at least one node; and displaying, via a graphical UI, the screenshot of the UI state of the at least one node.” (Pg. 20 Sect. 6, “Our experimental object for this study is Google ADSENSE, an AJAX application developed by Google, which empowers online publishers to earn revenue by displaying relevant ads on their Web content. The ADSENSE inter face is built using GWT (Google Web Toolkit) components and is written in Java. Figure 8 shows the index page of ADSENSE. On the top, there are four main tabs (Home, My ads, Allow & block ads, Performance reports). On the top left side, there is a box holding the anchors for the current selected tab. Underneath the left-menu box, there is a box holding links to help-related pages. On the right of the left-menu we can see the main contents, which are loaded by AJAX calls.” Further see Sect. 6 and Fig. 8 as reproduced below as Fig. 3. The examiner has interpreted that showing an instance of Google ADSENSE displaying tabs, links, and contents as obtaining a screenshot of the UI state of the at least one node; and displaying, via a graphical UI, the screenshot of the UI state of the at least one node.)
PNG
media_image3.png
247
738
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Google ADSENSE
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “obtaining a screenshot of the UI state of the at least one node; and displaying, via a graphical UI, the screenshot of the UI state of the at least one node” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Mesbah, into that of Zou because this modification of capturing the state of the UI for the advantageous purpose of analyzing the performance and accuracy of the state modeling (Mesbah, Pg. 17 and 13). Further motivation to combine be that Zou and Mesbah are analogous art to the current claim directed to creating node graphs of UI states.
As per claim 6, Zou teaches “displaying, to a user via a graphical UI, the recorded UI state of the at least one node; receiving a user input indicating a privacy status of the at least one node, a security status of the at least one node, an accessibility status of the at least one node, or any combination thereof; recording the user input with the UI state of the at least one node”. (Pg. 61 Sect. 2, “If the URL is static (i.e. not changeable by JavaScript based on user inputs or actions), traditional web page crawlers can easily determine if it is a broken link. In contrast, if the URL is dynamically composed on the client-side through JavaScript and some runtime inputs, it maybe difficult to identify the problem if the interactions inducing failure are not exercised during testing” [e.g., accessibility status]. Pg. 62 Sect. 2 “Therefore, it's possible that a test run correctly executes this specific print on the server-side but failed to notice that the hyper-link is broken until the link is clicked in the client interface. In other words, a test case that covers the statement on the server-side may still miss the bug if it does not follow the link on the client-side” [e.g., user input indicating accessibility]. Pg. 62 Sect. 2, “The result of clicking the button is to execute a piece of JavaScript specified in the href property of the <a> element, which is supposed to send a deletion request and navigate the user away to a webpage belonging to the Parent module. Such navigation can be achieved by assigning a unique ID to document.parents.page2.value at line 4, which is “3” in the snippet. However, its behavior is buggy because it redirects the client to a page of the Teacher module” [displaying, to a user via a graphical UI, the recorded UI state of the at least one node, and receiving and recording a user input indicating an accessibility status with the UI state of the at least one node]. Further see Sect. 2. The examiner has interpreted that a user clicking a button and being directed to Teacher webpage when it was supposed to send a deletion request and send the user to a Parent webpage which was failed to be noticed on the server-side as displaying, to a user via a graphical UI, the recorded UI state of the at least one node, receiving a user input indicating a privacy status of the at least one node, a security status of the at least one node, an accessibility status of the at least one node, or any combination thereof, and recording the user input with the UI state of the at least one node.)
As per claim 7, Zou does not specifically teach “traversing at least a portion of the graphical node representation in accordance with the sequence of interactions by the UI state mapper program to obtain an end-to-end execution time for the graphical node representation, an interaction path of the graphical node representation, or at least a portion of the sequence of interactions” and “outputting a duration corresponding to the traversal of at least the portion of the graphical node representation.”
However, Mesbah teaches “traversing at least a portion of the graphical node representation in accordance with the sequence of interactions by the UI state mapper program to generate the graphical node representation” and “outputting a duration corresponding to the traversal of at least the portion of the graphical node representation.” (Pg. 21 Sect. 6, “To crawl ADSENSE, we configured CRAWLJAX 2.0 to click on all anchor-tags and fill in form inputs with custom data” [traversing at least a portion of the graphical node representation in accordance with the sequence of interactions by the UI state mapper program]. Pg. 21 Sect. 6, “The dependent variable that we measure is the time needed to crawl the given crawl specification, calculated from the start of the crawling until the (last) browser finishes. To compare, we also measure the actual number of examined clickables, crawled states, edges, and path” [traversing to obtain an end-to-end execution time for the graphical node representation]. Table III displays the statistics of the execution time from traversing through the different applications, e.g. outputting a duration corresponding to the traversal of at least the portion of the graphical node representation. Further see Sect. 4 and 6. The examiner has interpreted crawling Google ADSENSE by clicking anchor-tags and providing inputs and measuring and displaying the time to crawl through the application from start to finish through a number of different browsers as traversing at least a portion of the graphical node representation in accordance with the sequence of interactions by the UI state mapper program to obtain an end-to-end execution time and outputting a duration corresponding to the traversal of at least the portion of the graphical node representation.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “traversing at least a portion of the graphical node representation in accordance with the sequence of interactions by the UI state mapper program to obtain an end-to-end execution time” and “outputting a duration corresponding to the traversal of at least the portion of the graphical node representation” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Mesbah, into that of Zou because this obtaining the runtime for crawling through the application for the advantageous purpose of analyzing the performance of the application (Mesbah, Pg. 3 and 17). Further motivation to combine be that Zou and Mesbah are analogous art to the current claim directed to creating node graphs of UI states.
As per claim 8, Zou teaches “identifying one or more iFrames within the web document, one or more shadow document object models (DOMs), or both.” (Pg. 61 Sect. 1, “In this paper, we propose a novel coverage criterion: Virtual Document Object Model (V-DOM) coverage. Webpages are represented as DOM trees internally by a browser. The root of a tree represents the whole document (i.e. the page). Other objects such as frames, text-boxes and buttons are organized as a tree based on their nesting structure” [e.g., iFrames within the web document]. Pg. 61 Sect. 1, “To construct the V-DOM tree of a server script, we perform static analysis on the server-side code (e.g., PHP) to identify all the possible DOM objects that could be emitted by the server code to the page returned to the client, and organize them in a tree just like a real DOM tree” [identifying one or more iFrames]. Further see Sect. 1 & 3. The examiner has interpreted that identifying all possible DOM objects such as frames in a nesting structure of a webpage as identifying one or more iFrames within the web document.)
As per claim 9, Zou teaches “wherein the graphical node representation comprises a tree data structure.” (Pg. 61 Sect. 1, “In this paper, we propose a novel coverage criterion: Virtual Document Object Model (V-DOM) coverage. Webpages are represented as DOM trees internally by a browser. The root of a tree represents the whole document (i.e. the page). Other objects such as frames, text-boxes and buttons are organized as a tree based on their nesting structure. In some sense, we could consider that each page displayed to the client is essentially a DOM tree. A V-DOM tree is a logical aggregation of all the possible DOM trees produced by a server script… To construct the V-DOM tree of a server script, we perform static analysis on the server-side code (e.g., PHP) to identify all the possible DOM objects that could be emitted by the server code to the page returned to the client, and organize them in a tree just like a real DOM tree” [wherein the graphical node representation comprises a tree data structure]. Further see Sect. 1. The examiner has interpreted that constructing a virtual document object model (V-DOM) coverage for webpages to construct DOM trees as a representation of the webpage as wherein the graphical node representation comprises a tree data structure.)
Re Claim 10, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding claim 10, Zou teaches “An apparatus for mapping user interface (UI) states, comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor”. (Pg. 57 Sect. 5, “In the second experiment, we evaluate the runtime performance of V-DOM tree construction and compare it with the cost of running crawljax. The results are shown in Table 2. The experiment was performed on a machine with Intel Core i3 3.07GHz CPU and 4GB RAM” [e.g., an apparatus for mapping user interface (UI) states, comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor].)
Re Claim 11, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Re Claim 12, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Re Claim 13, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Re Claim 14, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
Re Claim 15, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 6. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
Re Claim 16, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 7. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7.
Re Claim 17, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 8. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8.
Re Claim 18, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 9. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 9.
Re Claim 19, it is an articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, regarding claim 19, Zou teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for mapping user interface (UI) states, the code comprising instructions executable by a processor”. (Pg. 57 Sect. 5, “In the second experiment, we evaluate the runtime performance of V-DOM tree construction and compare it with the cost of running crawljax. The results are shown in Table 2. The experiment was performed on a machine with Intel Core i3 3.07GHz CPU and 4GB RAM” [e.g., a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for mapping user interface (UI) states, the code comprising instructions executable by a processor].)
Re Claim 20, it is an articles of manufacture claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 24, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 10, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claim 1, 10, and 19 features are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is integrated into a practical application the claim recites additional elements that improve the field of technology as analogous to USPTO examples 37 and 40 (See Applicant’s response, Pg. 11-14).
MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) recites “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. vi. A Web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”; MPEP § 2106.05(g) recites “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering: Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982)”; MPEP § 2106.05(I) recites “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” MPEP § 2106.04(I) “Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea")”; and MPEP § 2106.05(a) recites “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”; and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II) recites “examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application” (emphasis added).
Firstly, while the Examiner agrees that the claim 1 limitation of “interacting, by a UI state mapper program, with the set of interactable elements of the UI, the interacting comprising: activating one or more interactable elements of the UI, wherein activation of at least one first interactable element of the one or more interactable elements causes a first UI state change resulting from a universal resource locator (URL) change, and wherein activation of at least one second interactable element of the one or more interactable elements causes a second UI state change resulting from a visual effect on the UI without a URL change” is not a mental process, as similarly interpreted in the previous office action, this limitation has been interpreted as merely interacting with a webpage which both has been found in the art to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity and has been defined by MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as well-understood, routine, or conventional. Therefore, this additional element is an insignificant extra-solution activity as defined and as such evidence is provided by reference(s) in the art and in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Secondly, The Examiner respectfully disagrees, with Applicant’s argument that the claims are analogous to Example 37 and Example 40. Example 37 was found to be eligible as reciting an improvement by automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use. This allowed the claims to be considered eligible at Step 2A Prong 2. Example 40 was found to be eligible as reciting an improvement by avoiding excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance which allowed the claims to be considered eligible at Step 2B. Here, the claimed improvement of the instant application that the claims recite is obtaining a graphical node that is a better representation of the UI states of a web document, which has been identified as an abstract idea, which cannot provide the improvement. There is no improvement in interacting with the webpage, and this step has been identified above as well-understood, routine, and conventional. The step merely provides data to generate a graphical node representation that represents different states upon interaction with the elements, which has been identified as a mental process, an abstract idea, and cannot provide the improvement to make the claim eligible at Step 2A prong 1. Therefore, the Examiner believes the claims are not analogous to Example 37 and 40 as they do not contain similar limitations to these examples and but do contain abstract steps that were identified under Step 2A prong 1 that have not been integrated in a practical application.
Therefore, the examiner has properly identified that the claims recite a feature that is well-understood,
routine, or conventional in the art and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the
feature is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 14-17, filed July 24, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 10, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amended claims and previously cited art, necessitated by the applicant’s amendment, as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,023,462 B2 Kent IV, David et al. teaches a method for controlling a GUI by providing a view tree of GUI elements based on inputs that are used to traverse the nodes of the view tree and displaying the view tree.
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.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/SIMEON P DRAPEAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights