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 .
This action is responsive to Request for Continued Examination filed on 3/9/2026 to application filed on 06/26/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 11 and 16 are independent claims.
All rejections in the previous office action not set forth below have been withdrawn as necessitated by the argument.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/9/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11-13, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al., US 2014/0215300 in view of Hironiwa, US 2009/0083617 and further in view of Viswanathan et al. (US 8,755,404 B2).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a computer-implemented method for providing a graphical user interface for editing lines of hierarchical markup language code, the method comprising:
accessing the lines of hierarchical markup language code, the hierarchical markup language code comprising a plurality of elements, each element comprising a corresponding subset of lines from the hierarchical markup language code, the plurality of elements having a predetermined order within the hierarchical markup language code (Yamamoto, fig.5; [0073]; accessing a hierarchical markup language text comprising elements);
generating … a plurality of graphical devices, each graphical device uniquely corresponding to a corresponding element of the plurality of … elements and representing its corresponding element, each graphical device selectable by a user (Yamamoto, fig.6; [0074]; generating a tree structure with folders/nodes and icons; user click on a folder/node to expand, collapse or edit corresponding elements of the markup); and
generating a graphical user interface for display on a computer display, the graphical user interface comprising the plurality of graphical devices arranged in the predetermined order of the elements (Yamamoto, fig.6; [0074]; graphical user interface displaying the tree comprising folders and buttons for user interacts/edits elements as specified in the markup).
However, Yamamoto does not teach parsing the lines of hierarchical markup language code into the plurality of parsed elements; each graphical device uniquely corresponding to a corresponding element of the plurality of parsed elements.
Hironiwa teaches parsing the lines of hierarchical markup language code into the plurality of elements (Hironiwa, [0131], [0133]; parsing HTML or XML document into elements to generate a tree structure with corresponding nodes).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined Hironiwa’s teaching and Yamamoto’s teaching to include parsing the lines of hierarchical markup language code into the plurality of parsed elements; each graphical device uniquely corresponding to a corresponding element of the plurality of parsed elements, since the combination would have facilitated the generate a tree structure with corresponding nodes as Hironiwa disclosed.
Yamamoto does not teach each parsed element including parsed lines of hierarchical markup language code; generating, from the parsed lines of hierarchical markup language code of the parsed elements. Viswanathan teaches parsing lines of a hierarchical markup language (Viswanathan, Claim 1 and 18; parsing text of a first message; Claim 3 and 20; some tags span multiple lines of code).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined Viswanathan’s teaching and Yamamoto’s teaching to include each parsed element including parsed lines of hierarchical markup language code; generating, from the parsed lines of hierarchical markup language code of the parsed elements, since the combination would have facilitated the generate a tree structure with corresponding nodes as Hironiwa disclosed.
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on claim 1, Yamamoto teaches further comprising: receiving, from the user, selection of a graphical device, said graphical device being a selected graphical device; and in response to receiving such selection, updating the selected graphical device to display its corresponding set of lines from the lines of hierarchical markup language code (Yamamoto, fig.6; [0074]; generating a tree structure with folders/nodes and icons; user click on a folder/node to expand, collapse or edit corresponding elements of the markup).
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on claim 2, Yamamoto teaches further comprising: receiving, from the user at the selected graphical device, edits to at least one line of the set of lines of code associated with the element represented by the selected graphical device (Yamamoto, fig.9; [0087]-[0089]; reflecting edited markup text in real-time when user selecting a node to move to another node).
Regarding claim 4, which is dependent on claim 1, Yamamoto teaches wherein: for a given element corresponding to a given graphical device from the plurality of graphical devices, the given element has an associated property; and wherein the graphical user interface comprises: an associated properties graphical panel configured to display the associated property (Yamamoto, [0042], [0080]; XML element having attributes; displaying a window for inputting an attribute associated with an element/node).
Claims 11-13 are for a computer-implemented system performing the method of claims 1, 2-3, 4, respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 16-18 for non-transitory computer readable medium having computer- executable code stored thereon, the computer-executable code, when executed by a computer, configured to cause the computer to perform the method of claims 1, 2, 4 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto and Hironiwa and Viswanathan as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Rivers-Moore et al., US 2005/0183006.
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on claim 1, Rivers-Moore teaches wherein:
for a given element corresponding to a given graphical device from the plurality of graphical devices, there exists a set of properties available and configured to be associated with the given element, but which properties are not associated with the given element; and wherein the graphical user interface comprises: an available properties graphical panel configured to display properties that are available and configured to be associated with the given element but which properties are not associated with the given element (Rivers-Moore, [0097]-[0099]; displaying window with current properties for user makes changes for a selected element/node).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined Rivers-Moore’s teaching and Yamamoto’s teaching to include for a given element corresponding to a given graphical device from the plurality of graphical devices, there exists a set of properties available and configured to be associated with the given element, but which properties are not associated with the given element; and wherein the graphical user interface comprises: an available properties graphical panel configured to display properties that are available and configured to be associated with the given element but which properties are not associated with the given element, since the combination would have facilitated the user to change current properties associated with the element as Rivers-Moore disclosed.
Claim 19 is for non-transitory computer readable medium having computer- executable code stored thereon, the computer-executable code, when executed by a computer, configured to cause the computer to perform the method of claim 5 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto and Hironiwa and Viswanathan as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bierenbaum, US 6970844 and Cook et al., US 7814427.
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on claim 1, Bierenbaum teaches wherein a given element of the plurality of elements has an associated bound property, which bound property is specified by a source, said element being a specified element, wherein the graphical user interface comprises: a first graphical device representing the specified element; and a second graphical device distinct from the first graphical device, the second graphical device representing the source of the bound property (Yamamoto, [0042], [0080]; an element having attributes; selecting an the element for editing the element’s attribute; displaying a window for inputting an attribute associated with an element/node).
However, Yamamoto does not teach a graphical link graphically connecting the first graphical device and the second graphical device to graphically indicate the source of the associated bound property.
Cook teaches a graphical link graphically connecting the first graphical device and the second graphical device to graphically indicate the source of the associated bound property (Cook, col.10, lines 44-56; arrowed end line from child to parent element indicating inherit relationship from the child to parent).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined Cook’s teaching into Hironiwa’s, Yamamoto’s and Viswanathan’s teaching to include a graphical link graphically connecting the first graphical device and the second graphical device to graphically indicate the source of the associated bound property, since the combination would have facilitated the user to notice relationships between elements.
Claim 14 is for a computer-implemented system performing the method of claim 6 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto and Hironiwa and Viswanathan as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bierenbaum, US 6970844.
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on claim 1, Yamamoto teaches wherein at least a first element from the plurality of elements is bound to a set of second elements from the plurality of elements, and the graphical user interface comprises: a graphical filter device configured to be activated by the user and that, when activated by the user, causes the graphical user interface to show the first element and the set of second elements (Yamamoto, fig.6; [0074]; clicking an illustration of folder to fold up or fold out corresponding elements of the markup in the tree structure).
However, Yamamoto does not teach a first element is bound to second elements by a set of property bindings or resource references.
Bierenbaum teaches a first element is bound to second elements by a set of property bindings or resource references (Bierenbaum, fig.4; col.12, lines 45-56; col.24, line 55 – col.25, line 20; a child may inherit properties from its parent and ancestors).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined Bierenbaum’s teaching into Hironiwa’s, Yamamoto’s and Viswanathan’s teaching to include a first element is bound to second elements by a set of property bindings or resource references, since the combination would have facilitated the relationship among elements with inheritance rules as Bierenbaum disclosed.
Claims 8, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto and Hironiwa and Viswanathan as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bierenbaum, US 6970844 and Lee et al., US 2003/0023472.
Regarding claim 8, which is dependent on claim 1, Bierenbaum teaches wherein a target element from the plurality of elements has a set property that is bound to another element property, said another element property specified by a property source, and wherein: the graphical user interface comprises: a first graphical device representing the target element and a second graphical device representing the property source (Bierenbaum, fig.4; col.12, lines 45-56; col.24, line 55 – col.25, line 20; a child object may inherit properties from its parent object; displaying element/object’s properties, such as name, value, and inheritance status from an ancestor).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined Bierenbaum’s teaching into Hironiwa’s, Yamamoto’s and Viswanathan’s teaching to include a target element from the plurality of elements has a set property that is bound to another element property, said another element property specified by a property source, and wherein: the graphical user interface comprises: a first graphical device representing the target element and a second graphical device representing the property source, since the combination would have facilitated the user to edit/interact with elements when properties of elements is displayed.
However, Bierenbaum does not teach a graphical element graphically linking the target element to the property source.
Lee teaches a graphical element graphically linking the target element to the property source (Lee, fig.6; [0123]; a line with triangle arrow indicates children nodes inherits attributes from parent node).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined Lee’s teaching into Bierenbaum, Hironiwa’s, Yamamoto’s and Viswanathan’s teaching to include a graphical element graphically linking the target element to the property source, since the combination would have facilitated the user to notice inheritance relationships between elements.
Claims 20 for non-transitory computer readable medium having computer- executable code stored thereon, the computer-executable code, when executed by a computer, configured to cause the computer to perform the method of claims 8 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 9-10, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto and Hironiwa and Viswanathan as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lee et al., US 2003/0023472.
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on claim 1, Yamamoto teaches wherein a target element from the plurality of elements has a property that is bound to a specified resource, and wherein the graphical user interface comprises: a first graphical device representing the target element and a second graphical device representing the specified resource (Yamamoto, [0042], [0080]; XML element having attributes; displaying a window for inputting an attribute associated with an element/node).
However, Yamamoto does not teach a graphical element graphically linking the target element to the specified resource.
Lee teaches a graphical element graphically linking the target element to the property source (Lee, fig.6; [0123]; a line with triangle arrow indicates children nodes inherits attributes from parent node).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined Lee’s teaching into Hironiwa’s, Yamamoto’s and Viswanathan’s teaching to include a graphical element graphically linking the target element to the property source, since the combination would have facilitated the user to notice inheritance relationships between elements.
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto teaches which is dependent on claim 1, Yamamoto teaches wherein the graphical user interface comprises: target graphical device representing the target element and a set of second graphical devices representing elements in the hierarchy of elements (Yamamoto, fig.6; [0074]).
However, Yamamoto does not teach the rest of claim 10.
Lee teaches wherein a target element from the plurality of elements inherits a property from a property source through a set of other elements within a hierarchy of elements within the predetermined order; and a graphical element graphically linking the target element to a source graphical device representing the property source, said graphical element graphically running through the set of other elements within the hierarchy to indicate that said other elements within the hierarchy inherit the property (Lee, fig.6; [0123]; a line with triangle arrow indicates children nodes inherits attributes from parent node).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filling date of the invention, to have combined Lee’s teaching into Hironiwa’s, Yamamoto’s and Viswanathan’s teaching to include a target element from the plurality of elements inherits a property from a property source through a set of other elements within a hierarchy of elements within the predetermined order; and a graphical element graphically linking the target element to a source graphical device representing the property source, said graphical element graphically running through the set of other elements within the hierarchy to indicate that said other elements within the hierarchy inherit the property, since the combination would have facilitated the user to notice inheritance relationships between elements.
Claims 15 are for a computer-implemented system performing the method of claims 10 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues:
The Office Action acknowledges at page 4, that Yamamoto "does not teach generating" a plurality of graphical devices "from the parsed lines of hierarchical markup language coted of the parsed elements." The Office Action did not cite Hironiwa for that feature.
However, the Office Action cited, at page 4, Viswanathan for teaching "parsing lines of a hierarchical makeup language (Viswanathan, Claim 1 and 18, parsing text of a first message, Claim 3 and 20; some tags span multiple lines of code)."
From that assertion, the Office Action concluded that it "would have been obvious to have combined Viswanathan's teaching and Yamamoto's teaching to include generating, from the parsed lines of hierarchical markup language code of the parsed elements "
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claim 1 over Yamamoto in view of Hironiwa and further in view of Viswanathan because the Office Action did not find, in Yamamoto or in Hironiwa or in Viswanathan, the generation of graphical devices "from the parsed lines of hierarchical markup language coted of the parsed elements."
Indeed, the Office Action alleged only Viswanathan for "generating, from the parsed lines of hierarchical markup language code of the parsed elements " but a study of that part of the Office Action on page 4 shows that the Office Action cited Viswanathan only for "parsing" and not for "generating."
For at least that reason, Yamamoto in view of Hironiwa and further in view of Viswanathan fails to teach all elements of claim 1, and fails to render claim 1 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs 0131 and 0133 of Hironiwa explicitly disclose the documents described in markup languages are presented in a browser or other applications in the form of a tree structure as a result of parsing a document. It is clear that the file presented in a browser or other application is generated from the markup language. While Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose that the XML (P 0073) is parsed to display the tree structure in a format as shown in Figure 6, it is clear that some kind of parsing operation is performed. Hironiwa has been combined with Yamamoto for the explicit disclosure of parsing a markup language file for display.
The applicant argues:
Further, Viswanathan does not teach "parsing lines of a hierarchical markup language." Indeed, Viswanathan does not even include the phrase "hierarchical markup language." Further, Viswanathan does not even include the phrase "parse" or "parsing." Even the cited portions of Viswanathan (Claim 1 and 18; Claim 3 and 20) make no mention of parsing.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, Hironiwa discloses parsing and displaying a tree structure represented by markup language. Viswanathan also discloses parsing text, but was combined with Yamamoto for parsing specific lines of code (text) representing specific elements. Viswanathan discloses translating comprises parsing said first text of said first message in forming said second text of said second message, parsing second text to identify said first operation and said first resource (Claim 1) where some tags span multiple lines of code (Claim 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to JOHN M HEFFINGTON at telephone number (571)270-1696.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M HEFFINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1696. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:30 am to 5:30 pm Eastern.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cesar B Paula, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4128. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/J.M.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2145 4/3/2026
/CESAR B PAULA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2145