DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed under 37 CFR §1.53(d) for the instant application on October 20, 2025. The Applicants have properly set forth the RCE, which has been entered into the application, and an examination on the merits follows herewith.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 3, 2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0329801 to McKee et al. (“McKee”), over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0201936 to Hanumanula et al. (“Hanumanula”), and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0189003 to Liu et al. (“Liu”).
Regarding claim 1, McKee describes a system and methods for detecting and correcting webpage and application layout anomalies in real-time (see e.g. paragraphs 0006 and 0024). Like claimed, McKee particularly teaches:
retrieving, by a server, a pixel map corresponding to an electronic application displayed on an electronic client device as a result of execution of a first protocol, the pixel map indicating a pixel status of each pixel within a set of pixels of a display area of the electronic client device when the electronic application is displayed (see e.g. paragraphs 0006, 0029 and 0034: McKee describes a system that receives device data from an electronic client device, the device data including operating environment characteristics and data related to a state/layout of a webpage or application on the client device. McKee discloses that the system then detects at least one anomaly associated with the layout of the webpage or application running on the client device – see e.g. paragraphs 0006 and 0036-0037. McKee discloses that this can entail evaluating pixels rendered on the display surface of the client device, e.g. to determine if they correspond to expected pixels or an expected layout of pixels – see e.g. paragraphs 0037 and 0061. McKee teaches that the expected layout characteristics, including understandably the expected pixels or expected layout of pixels, is retrieved from a database according to the device characteristics, e.g. the resolution, of the client device – see e.g. paragraphs 0029, 0035, 0037-0038, 0040 and 0058. The expected pixels or expected layout of pixels taught by McKee is considered a “pixel map” like claimed, and corresponds to an electronic application displayed on the client device as a result of execution of a first protocol, i.e. as a result of execution of instructions to access and display a webpage or application interface on the client device. Like the claimed pixel map, the expected pixels or expected layout of pixels taught by McKee indicates a pixel status of each pixel within a set of pixels of a display area of the client device when the electronic application is displayed. Lastly, McKee discloses that such teachings, e.g. retrieval of the pixel map, can be implemented by a server – see e.g. paragraphs 0056, 0069 and 0084.);
identifying, by the server, from the electronic client device, a pixel status of at least one pixel within the display area (see e.g. paragraphs 0006, 0029 and 0034: as noted above, McKee describes a system that receives device data from an electronic client device, the device data including data related to a state/layout of a webpage or application on the client device. As further noted above, McKee discloses that the system then detects at least one anomaly associated with the layout of the webpage or application on the client device, e.g. by evaluating pixels rendered on the display surface of the client device to determine if they correspond to expected pixels or an expected layout of pixels – see e.g. paragraphs 0036-0037 and 0061. Accordingly, it is apparent that the system necessarily identifies from the client device a pixel status of at least one pixel within the display area of the webpage or application rendered on the client device so as to determine if it corresponds to the expected pixels or expected layout of pixels. As noted above, McKee discloses that such teachings can be implemented by a server – see e.g. paragraphs 0056, 0069 and 0084.); and
upon determining that the pixel status of the at least one pixel does not match a pixel status of a corresponding pixel within the pixel map, executing, by the server, a second protocol configured to display the electronic application on the electronic client device (see e.g. paragraphs 0006, 0046, 0055 and 0061-0062: McKee teaches that, after detecting the anomaly, the system automatically determines and applies at least one corrective action to fix the detected anomaly. McKee particularly discloses that, if the pixels rendered on the display surface of the client device do not correspond to expected pixels or an expected layout of pixels, i.e. do not match a pixel within the pixel map, the system executes a second protocol, e.g. to refresh the web page or application, so as to appropriately display the webpage or application on the client device – see e.g. paragraphs 0061-0062. As noted above, McKee discloses that such teachings can be implemented by a server – see e.g. paragraphs 0056, 0069 and 0084.).
Accordingly, McKee teaches a method similar to that of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the pixel map is unique to a dimensional attribute of the display area of the electronic client device, as is required by claim 1. McKee also does not explicitly teach that the pixel status identified by the server of the at least one pixel is particularly a pixel status of at least one pixel of a subset of the set of pixels, and is identified by selecting, according to a randomized sampling algorithm, the subset of the set of pixels and by determining the pixel status of the at least one pixel, as is further required by claim 1.
Hanumanula nevertheless generally teaches providing unique web pages for different display sizes of the electronic client devices used to display the web pages (see e.g. paragraphs 0002 and 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of McKee and Hanumanula before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method taught by McKee such that the web page provided to the electronic client device is unique to the display size (i.e. dimensional attributes) of the electronic client device like taught by Hanumanula. Consequently, it follows that the pixel map taught by McKee (i.e. the expected pixels of an image on the web page or the expected layout of pixels for the webpage) would likewise be unique to the dimensional attribute of the display area of the electronic client device, so as to be able to properly determine if the webpage and its elements are rendered correctly. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination, because the resulting webpage would provide a better user experience, as is taught by Hanumanula (see e.g. paragraphs 0001-0002).
Liu generally teaches a method to determine similarities between two images (see e.g. paragraph 0016). Regarding the claimed invention, Liu particularly teaches determining the similarity between two images by, inter alia, randomly selecting a subset of pixels in a first image, and by comparing an intensity attribute of each pixel in the randomly-selected subset to an intensity attribute of a corresponding pixel from within a second image (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020, 0040-0041, 0044-0045, 0087-0089 and 0096).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of McKee, Hanumanula and Liu before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method taught by McKee and Hanumanula such that, when the server evaluates pixels rendered on the display surface of the client device (i.e. a first image) to determine if they correspond to expected pixels or an expected layout of pixels (i.e. the pixel map/second image), the server does so by randomly selecting a subset of pixels in the first image (i.e. a subset of the set of the pixels indicating the state/layout of the webpage or application) received from the client device and by comparing the pixel status (e.g. intensity) of pixels of the subset to the pixel status of corresponding pixels in the second image (i.e. the pixel map), as is taught by Liu. The server thus identifies, from the client device, a pixel status of at least one pixel of a subset of the set of pixels within the display area of the electronic client device (i.e. a subset of the pixels rendered on the display surface of the client device) by selecting, according to a randomized sampling algorithm, the subset of the set of pixels and by identifying the pixel status (e.g. intensity) of the at least one pixel of the subset. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would provide for a more efficient comparison of the images (i.e. by eliminating the necessity of comparing every pixel within the first image to a corresponding pixel in the second image), as is evident from Liu (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020, 0040-0041, 0044-0045, 0087-0089 and 0096). Accordingly, McKee, Hanumanula and Liu are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 1.
As per claim 4, McKee further teaches retrieving, by the server, a status of connectivity (e.g. an upload and/or download speed) associated with the electronic client device (see e.g. paragraphs 0034-0035 and 0063). Accordingly, the above-described combination of McKee, Hanumanula and Liu is further considered to teach a method like that of claim 4.
As per claim 5, McKee further teaches terminating, by the server, execution of the first protocol (see e.g. paragraph 0034: McKee discloses that the system, e.g. the server, receives webpage and/or application identification data such as an internet browser type and version. McKee further discloses that the corrective action to a detected anomaly can entail removing an overlapping image or element, refreshing the webpage, and/or downgrading graphic features of the webpage – see e.g. paragraphs 0055 and 0061. Such corrective actions understandably necessitate terminating execution of the first protocol, i.e. terminating the display of the application screen or webpage that caused the anomaly.). Accordingly, the above-described combination of McKee, Hanumanula and Liu is further considered to teach a method like that of claim 5.
As per claim 6, McKee further teaches refreshing, by the server, the display of the electronic application (see e.g. paragraphs 0047, 0055 and 0061: McKee discloses that the system, e.g. server, can provide a corrective action that includes refreshing the webpage or application.). Accordingly, the above-described combination of McKee, Hanumanula and Liu is further considered to teach a method like that of claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, McKee describes a system and methods for detecting and correcting webpage and application layout anomalies in real-time (see e.g. paragraphs 0006 and 0024). Like claimed, McKee particularly describes a system comprising:
a database (see e.g. paragraphs 0029, 0038, 0040, and 0058: McKee discloses that the system comprises a database, e.g. a remote database stored on server.);
an electronic client device (see e.g. paragraph 0029: McKee discloses that the system can comprise a client device such as a personal computer.); and
a server (see e.g. paragraphs 0029 and 0056: McKee discloses that the system comprises one or more servers.) configured to:
retrieve, from the database, a pixel map corresponding to an electronic application displayed on an electronic client device as a result of execution of a first protocol, the pixel map indicating a pixel status of each pixel within a set of pixels of a display area of the electronic client device when the electronic application is displayed (see e.g. paragraphs 0006, 0029 and 0034: McKee discloses that the system receives device data from the electronic client device, the device data including operating environment characteristics and data related to a state/layout of a webpage or application on the client device. McKee discloses that the system then detects at least one anomaly associated with the layout of the webpage or application running on the client device – see e.g. paragraphs 0006 and 0036-0037. McKee discloses that this can entail evaluating pixels rendered on the display surface of the client device, e.g. to determine if they correspond to expected pixels or an expected layout of pixels – see e.g. paragraphs 0037 and 0061. McKee teaches that the expected layout characteristics, including understandably the expected pixels or expected layout of pixels, is retrieved from a database according to the device characteristics, e.g. the resolution, of the client device – see e.g. paragraphs 0029, 0035, 0037-0038, 0040 and 0058. The expected pixels or expected layout of pixels taught by McKee is considered a “pixel map” like claimed, and corresponds to an electronic application displayed on the client device as a result of execution of a first protocol, i.e. as a result of execution of instructions to access and display a webpage or application interface on the client device. Like the claimed pixel map, the expected pixels or expected layout of pixels taught by McKee indicates a pixel status of each pixel within a set of pixels of a display area of the client device when the electronic application is displayed. Lastly, McKee discloses that such teachings, e.g. retrieval of the pixel map, can be implemented by a server of the system – see e.g. paragraphs 0056, 0069 and 0084.);
identify, from the electronic client device, a pixel status of at least one pixel within the display area (see e.g. paragraphs 0006, 0029 and 0034: as noted above, McKee describes a system that receives device data from an electronic client device, the device data including data related to a state/layout of a webpage or application on the client device. As further noted above, McKee discloses that the system then detects at least one anomaly associated with the layout of the webpage or application on the client device, e.g. by evaluating pixels rendered on the display surface of the client device to determine if they correspond to expected pixels or an expected layout of pixels – see e.g. paragraphs 0036-0037 and 0061. Accordingly, it is apparent that the system necessarily identifies from the client device a pixel status of at least one pixel within the display area of the webpage or application rendered on the client device so as to determine if it corresponds to the expected pixels or expected layout of pixels. As noted above, McKee discloses that such teachings can be implemented by a server – see e.g. paragraphs 0056, 0069 and 0084.); and
upon determining that the pixel status of the at least one pixel does not match a pixel status of a corresponding pixel within the pixel map, execute a second protocol configured to display the electronic application on the electronic client device (see e.g. paragraphs 0006, 0046, 0055 and 0061-0062: McKee teaches that, after detecting the anomaly, the system automatically determines and applies at least one corrective action to fix the detected anomaly. McKee particularly discloses that, if the pixels rendered on the display surface of the client device do not correspond to expected pixels or an expected layout of pixels, i.e. do not match a pixel within the pixel map, the system executes a second protocol, e.g. to refresh the web page or application, so as to appropriately display the webpage or application on the client device – see e.g. paragraphs 0061-0062. As noted above, McKee discloses that such teachings can be implemented by a server – see e.g. paragraphs 0056, 0069 and 0084.).
Accordingly, McKee teaches a system like that of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose that the pixel map is unique to a dimensional attribute of the display area of the electronic client device, as is required by claim 8. McKee also does not explicitly teach that the pixel status of the identified at least one pixel is particularly a pixel status of at least one pixel of a subset of the set of pixels, and is identified by selecting, according to a randomized sampling algorithm, the subset of the set of pixels and by determining the pixel status of the at least one pixel, as is further required by claim 8.
Like noted above, Hanumanula nevertheless teaches providing unique web pages for different display sizes of the electronic client devices used to display the web pages (see e.g. paragraphs 0002 and 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of McKee and Hanumanula before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by McKee such that the web page provided to the electronic client device is unique to the display size (i.e. dimensional attributes) of the electronic client device like taught by Hanumanula. Consequently, it follows that the pixel map taught by McKee (i.e. the expected pixels of an image on the web page or the expected layout of pixels for the webpage) would likewise be unique to the dimensional attribute of the display area of the electronic client device, so as to be able to properly determine if the webpage and its elements are rendered correctly. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination, because the resulting webpage would provide a better user experience, as is taught by Hanumanula (see e.g. paragraphs 0001-0002).
Like further noted above, Liu generally teaches a method to determine similarities between two images (see e.g. paragraph 0016). Liu particularly teaches determining the similarity between two images by, inter alia, randomly selecting a subset of pixels in a first image, and by comparing an intensity attribute of each pixel in the randomly-selected subset to an intensity attribute of a corresponding pixel from within a second image (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020, 0040-0041, 0044-0045, 0087-0089 and 0096).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of McKee, Hanumanula and Liu before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by McKee and Hanumanula such that, when the server evaluates pixels rendered on the display surface of the client device (i.e. a first image) to determine if they correspond to expected pixels or an expected layout of pixels (i.e. the pixel map/second image), the server does so by randomly selecting a subset of pixels in the first image (i.e. a subset of the set of the pixels indicating the state/layout of the webpage or application) received from the client device and by comparing the pixel status (e.g. intensity) of pixels of the subset to the pixel status of corresponding pixels in the second image (i.e. the pixel map), as is taught by Liu. The server thus identifies, from the client device, a pixel status of at least one pixel of a subset of the set of pixels within the display area of the electronic client device (i.e. a subset of the pixels rendered on the display surface of the client device) by selecting, according to a randomized sampling algorithm, the subset of the set of pixels and by identifying the pixel status (e.g. intensity) of the at least one pixel of the subset. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would provide for a more efficient comparison of the images (i.e. by eliminating the necessity of comparing every pixel within the first image to a corresponding pixel in the second image), as is evident from Liu (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020, 0040-0041, 0044-0045, 0087-0089 and 0096). Accordingly, McKee, Hanumanula and Liu are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a system like that of claim 8.
As per claim 11, McKee further teaches that the server is configured to retrieve a status of connectivity (e.g. an upload and/or download speed) associated with the electronic client device (see e.g. paragraphs 0034-0035 and 0063). Accordingly, the above-described combination of McKee, Hanumanula and Liu is further considered to teach a system like that of claim 11.
As per claim 12, McKee further teaches that the server is configured to terminate execution of the first protocol (see e.g. paragraph 0034: McKee discloses that the system, e.g. the server, receives webpage and/or application identification data such as an internet browser type and version. McKee further discloses that the corrective action to a detected anomaly can entail removing an overlapping image or element, refreshing the webpage, and/or downgrading graphic features of the webpage – see e.g. paragraphs 0055 and 0061. Such corrective actions understandably necessitate terminating execution of the first protocol, i.e. terminating the display of the application screen or webpage that caused the anomaly.). Accordingly, the above-described combination of McKee, Hanumanula and Liu is further considered to teach a system like that of claim 12.
As per claim 13, McKee further teaches that the server is configured to refresh the display of the electronic application (see e.g. paragraphs 0047, 0055 and 0061: McKee discloses that the system, e.g. server, can provide a corrective action that includes refreshing the webpage or application.). Accordingly, the above-described combination of McKee, Hanumanula and Liu is further considered to teach a system like that of claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, McKee describes a system and methods for detecting and correcting webpage and application layout anomalies in real-time (see e.g. paragraphs 0006 and 0024). Like claimed, McKee particularly teaches:
retrieving a pixel map corresponding to an electronic application displayed on an electronic client device as a result of execution of a first protocol, the pixel map indicating a pixel status of each pixel within a set of pixels of a display area of the electronic client device when the electronic application is displayed (see e.g. paragraphs 0006, 0029 and 0034: McKee describes a system that receives device data from an electronic client device, the device data including operating environment characteristics and data related to a state/layout of a webpage or application on the client device. McKee discloses that the system then detects at least one anomaly associated with the layout of the webpage or application running on the client device – see e.g. paragraphs 0006 and 0036-0037. McKee discloses that this can entail evaluating pixels rendered on the display surface of the client device, e.g. to determine if they correspond to expected pixels or an expected layout of pixels – see e.g. paragraphs 0037 and 0061. McKee teaches that the expected layout characteristics, including understandably the expected pixels or expected layout of pixels, is retrieved from a database according to the device characteristics, e.g. the resolution, of the client device – see e.g. paragraphs 0029, 0035, 0037-0038, 0040 and 0058. The expected pixels or expected layout of pixels taught by McKee is considered a “pixel map” like claimed, and corresponds to an electronic application displayed on the client device as a result of execution of a first protocol, i.e. as a result of execution of instructions to access and display a webpage or application interface on the client device. Like the claimed pixel map, the expected pixels or expected layout of pixels taught by McKee indicates a pixel status of each pixel within a set of pixels of a display area of the client device when the electronic application is displayed.);
identify, from the electronic client device, a pixel status of at least one pixel within the display area (see e.g. paragraphs 0006, 0029 and 0034: as noted above, McKee describes a system that receives device data from an electronic client device, the device data including data related to a state/layout of a webpage or application on the client device. As further noted above, McKee discloses that the system then detects at least one anomaly associated with the layout of the webpage or application on the client device, e.g. by evaluating pixels rendered on the display surface of the client device to determine if they correspond to expected pixels or an expected layout of pixels – see e.g. paragraphs 0036-0037 and 0061. Accordingly, it is apparent that the system necessarily identifies from the client device a pixel status of at least one pixel within the display area of the webpage or application rendered on the client device so as to determine if it corresponds to the expected pixels or expected layout of pixels.); and
upon determining that the pixel status of the at least one pixel does not match a pixel status of a corresponding pixel within the pixel map, executing a second protocol configured to display the electronic application on the electronic client device (see e.g. paragraphs 0006, 0046, 0055 and 0061-0062: McKee teaches that, after detecting the anomaly, the system automatically determines and applies at least one corrective action to fix the detected anomaly. McKee particularly discloses that, if the pixels rendered on the display surface of the client device do not correspond to expected pixels or an expected layout of pixels, i.e. do not match a pixel within the pixel map, the system executes a second protocol, e.g. to refresh the web page or application, so as to appropriately display the webpage or application on the client device – see e.g. paragraphs 0061-0062.).
McKee discloses that such teachings can be implemented via instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium of a computing device that further comprises one or more processors for executing the instructions (see e.g. paragraph 0069). Such a computing device comprising one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for implementing the above-described teachings of McKee is considered a system similar to that of claim 15. McKee however does not explicitly disclose that the pixel map is unique to a dimensional attribute of the display area of the electronic client device, as is required by claim 15. Moreover, McKee does not explicitly teach that the pixel status of the at least one pixel is particularly a pixel status of at least one pixel of a subset of the set of pixels, and is identified by selecting, according to a randomized sampling algorithm, the subset of the set of pixels and by determining the pixel status of the at least one pixel, as is further required by claim 15
Like noted above, Hanumanula nevertheless teaches providing unique web pages for different display sizes of the electronic client devices used to display the web pages (see e.g. paragraphs 0002 and 0010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of McKee and Hanumanula before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by McKee such that the web page provided to the electronic client device is unique to the display size (i.e. dimensional attributes) of the electronic client device like taught by Hanumanula. Consequently, it follows that the pixel map taught by McKee (i.e. the expected pixels of an image on the web page or the expected layout of pixels for the webpage) would likewise be unique to the dimensional attribute of the display area of the electronic client device, so as to be able to properly determine if the webpage and its elements are rendered correctly. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination, because the resulting webpage would provide a better user experience, as is taught by Hanumanula (see e.g. paragraphs 0001-0002).
Like further noted above, Liu generally teaches a method to determine similarities between two images (see e.g. paragraph 0016). Liu particularly teaches determining the similarity between two images by, inter alia, randomly selecting a subset of pixels in a first image, and by comparing an intensity attribute of each pixel in the randomly-selected subset to an intensity attribute of a corresponding pixel from within a second image (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020, 0040-0041, 0044-0045, 0087-0089 and 0096).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of McKee, Hanumanula and Liu before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by McKee and Hanumanula such that, when it evaluates pixels rendered on the display surface of the client device (i.e. a first image) to determine if they correspond to expected pixels or an expected layout of pixels (i.e. the pixel map/second image), the system does so by randomly selecting a subset of pixels in the first image (i.e. a subset of the set of the pixels indicating the state/layout of the webpage or application) received from the client device and by comparing the pixel status (e.g. intensity) of pixels of the subset to the pixel status of corresponding pixels in the second image (i.e. the pixel map), as is taught by Liu. The system thus identifies, from the client device, a pixel status of at least one pixel of a subset of the set of pixels within the display area of the electronic client device (i.e. a subset of the pixels rendered on the display surface of the client device) by selecting, according to a randomized sampling algorithm, the subset of the set of pixels and by identifying the pixel status (e.g. intensity) of the at least one pixel of the subset. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would provide for a more efficient comparison of the images (i.e. by eliminating the necessity of comparing every pixel within the first image to a corresponding pixel in the second image), as is evident from Liu (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020, 0040-0041, 0044-0045, 0087-0089 and 0096). Accordingly, McKee, Hanumanula and Liu are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a system like that of claim 15.
As per claim 18, McKee further teaches that the instructions cause the one or more processors of the system to retrieve a status of connectivity (e.g. an upload and/or download speed) associated with the electronic client device (see e.g. paragraphs 0034-0035 and 0063). Accordingly, the above-described combination of McKee, Hanumanula and Liu is further considered to teach a system like that of claim 18.
As per claim 19, McKee further teaches that the instructions cause the one or more processors of the system to terminate execution of the first protocol (see e.g. paragraph 0034: McKee discloses that the system, e.g. server, receives webpage and/or application identification data such as an internet browser type and version. McKee further discloses that the corrective action to a detected anomaly can entail removing an overlapping image or element, refreshing the webpage, and/or downgrading graphic features of the webpage – see e.g. paragraphs 0055 and 0061. Such corrective actions understandably necessitate terminating execution of the first protocol, i.e. terminating the display of the application screen or webpage that caused the anomaly.). Accordingly, the above-described combination of McKee, Hanumanula and Liu is further considered to teach a system like that of claim 19.
As per claim 20, McKee further teaches that the instructions cause the one or more processors of the system to refresh the display of the electronic application (see e.g. paragraphs 0047, 0055 and 0061: McKee discloses that the system, e.g. server, can provide a corrective action that includes refreshing the webpage or application.). Accordingly, the above-described combination of McKee, Hanumanula and Liu is further considered to teach a system like that of claim 20.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of McKee, Hanumanula and Liu described above, and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0220306 to Price et al. (“Price”).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, McKee, Hanumanula and Liu teach a method like that of claim 1 and the systems like in claims 8 and 15, as is described above, whereby a server identifies a pixel status of at least one pixel of a subset of pixels within a display area of an electronic client device when an electronic application is displayed, and upon determining that the pixel status does not match a pixel status of a corresponding pixel within a pixel map, executes a second protocol configured to display the electronic application on the client device. McKee, Hanumanula and Liu however do not explicitly disclose that the pixel status of the corresponding pixel within the pixel map corresponds to a color status, as is required by claims 2, 9 and 16.
Similar to McKee, Price describes a system comprising a server that tests whether a content item is rendered correctly on an electronic client device, including by comparing a pixel status of at least one pixel within the display area of the electronic client device (i.e. pixels of a captured image from the electronic client device) with a pixel status of a corresponding pixel within a pixel map (i.e. pixels of an expected, reference image) (see e.g. paragraphs 0002-0003, 0031-0033, and 0036). Further, regarding the claimed invention, Price particularly discloses that the pixel status of the corresponding pixel within the pixel map can correspond to a color status (e.g. a color intensity) (see e.g. paragraphs 0036 and 0058-0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of McKee, Hanumanula, Liu and Price before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and systems taught by McKee, Hanumanula and Liu such that the pixel status of the corresponding pixel within the pixel map corresponds to a color status like taught by Price. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a color status, because it can be used to verify whether the content is rendered appropriately on the electronic client device, as is evident from Price (see e.g. paragraphs 0036 and 0058-0060). Accordingly, McKee, Hanumanula, Liu and Price are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 2, a system like that of claim 9, and a system like that of claim 16.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of McKee, Hanumanula and Liu described above, and also over U.S. Patent No. 9,396,088 to Liang et al (“Liang”).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, McKee, Hanumanula and Liu teach a method like that of claim 1 and the systems like in claims 8 and 15, as is described above, whereby a server executes a second protocol configured to display an electronic application on an electronic client device. McKee, Hanumanula and Liu, however, do not explicitly disclose that the server or system displays a status bar corresponding to a time value associated with execution of the second protocol, as is required by claims 3, 10 and 17.
Displaying a status bar that corresponds to a time associated with executing a task is nevertheless well-known in the art. Liang, for example, generally teaches displaying a status bar (i.e. a progress bar) that indicates the progress of a computational task, and that particularly corresponds to a time value associated with execution of the task (see e.g. column 1, lines 5-29; column 5, lines 36-49; column 10, line 61 – column 11, line 15; and FIG. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of McKee, Hanumanula, Liu and Liang before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the server taught by McKee, Hanumanula and Liu so as to cause display of a status bar like taught by Liang to indicate the progress of the computational task (i.e. of the second protocol for displaying the electronic application), wherein the status bar corresponds to a time value associated with execution of the task. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a status bar, because it provides the user with useful information as to how much time remains for the task to complete, as is taught by Liang. Accordingly, McKee, Hanumanula, Liu and Liang are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 3, a system like that of claim 10, and a system like that of claim 17.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of McKee, Hanumanula and Liu described above, and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0129914 to Agarwal (“Agarwal”).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, McKee, Hanumanula and Liu teach a method like that of claim 1 and a system like that of claim 8, as is described above, whereby a server executes a second protocol configured to display an electronic application on an electronic client device. McKee, Hanumanula and Liu however do not explicitly disclose that the server pre-populates at least one input field of the electronic application, as is required by claims 7 and 14.
Agarwal nevertheless teaches providing a webpage comprising a form to a client device, wherein the form comprises a plurality of input fields configured to receive data from the client device (see e.g. paragraphs 0005, 0007, 0038-0039, 0055-0057; and FIG. 3). Agarwal further discloses that a server stores data corresponding to at least one input field of the plurality of input fields received from the client device (see e.g. paragraphs 0019, 0041 and 0057). Moreover, Agarwal discloses that the server can pre-populate at least one input field of the form upon providing the form to the client device (see e.g. paragraphs 0020, 0042 and 0058-0059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of McKee, Hanumanula, Liu and Agarwal before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and system taught by McKee, Hanumanula and Liu such that the server pre-populates at least one input field of the electronic application like taught by Agarwal. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because enabling the server to store and pre-populate input fields of a form would aid the user when filling out the form, as is evident from Agarwal (see e.g. paragraphs 0004-0005, 0012 and 0019-0020). Accordingly, McKee, Hanumanula, Liu and Agarwal are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 7 and a system like that of claim 14.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,704,137 (the “Parent”), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0189003 to Liu et al. (“Liu”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the Parent anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Particularly, like in claim 1 instant application, claim 1 of the Parent teaches a method comprising:
retrieving, by a server, a pixel map corresponding to an electronic application (i.e. a webpage form) displayed on an electronic client device as a result of execution of a first protocol, the pixel map indicting a pixel status of each pixel within a set of pixels of a display area of the electronic client device when the electronic application is displayed, wherein the pixel map is unique to a dimensional attribute of the display area of the electronic client device (i.e. claim 1 of the Parent recites, “A method comprising: receiving, by a server from an application executing on an electronic client device having a display area, an indication of execution, by a webserver communicatively coupled to the server, of a first protocol configured to display a plurality of media elements on a webpage comprising an electronic form displayed on the electronic client device, wherein at least some of the media elements represent a section of the electronic form or fields of the electronic form; [and] retrieving, by the server from a database based on a size of the display area of the electronic client device, a pixel map unique to the plurality of media elements and the display area, the pixel map indicating a pixel status of each pixel within a set of pixels of the display area when the display area displays the plurality of media elements, wherein the pixel map is unique to a dimensional attribute of the display area”);
identifying, by the server, from the electronic client device, a pixel status of at least one pixel within the display area (i.e. claim 1 of the Parent recites, “upon receiving the indication of execution of the first protocol, generating, by the server, an instruction to transmit pixel statuses of pixels at a plurality of pixel locations within the display area, and transmitting the instruction to the electronic client device; [and] upon transmitting the instruction to the electronic client device, receiving, by the server, the pixel statuses of the pixels at the plurality of pixel locations”); and
upon determining that the pixel status of the at least one pixel does not match a pixel status of a corresponding pixel within the pixel map, executing, by the server, a second protocol (i.e. a re-executed first protocol) configured to display the electronic application on the electronic client device (i.e. claim 1 of the Parent recites, “comparing, by the server, a color attribute of the received pixel statuses of the pixels at the plurality of pixel locations of the electronic client device and a color attribute of the pixel statuses of corresponding pixels within the pixel map from the database; and upon determining that the color attribute of one or more of the received pixel statuses does not match the color attribute of the pixel status of a corresponding pixel within the pixel map, determining, by the server, a portion of the electronic form that is not fully displayed by the electronic client device, including determining, by the server, which of the media elements are not fully displayed on the electronic client device, and instructing the application to cause the electronic client device to request the webserver to re-execute the first protocol to display the plurality of media elements on a webpage displayed on the electronic client device”).
Claim 1 of the Parent thus recites a method similar to the method recited in claim 1 of the instant application. However, claim 1 of the Parent does not explicitly disclose that the pixel status identified by the server is particularly a pixel status of at least one pixel of a subset of the set of pixels, and is identified by selecting, according to a randomized sampling algorithm, the subset of the set of pixels and by determining the pixel status of the at least one pixel of the subset, as is required by claim 1 of the instant application.
Like noted above, Liu generally teaches a method to determine similarities between two images (see e.g. paragraph 0016). Liu particularly teaches determining the similarity between two images by, inter alia, randomly selecting a subset of pixels in a first image, and by comparing a pixel status (e.g. an intensity attribute) of each pixel in the randomly-selected subset to a pixel status (e.g. an intensity attribute) of a corresponding pixel from within a second image (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020, 0040-0041, 0044-0045, 0087-0089 and 0096).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the Parent and Liu before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method taught by the Parent such that, when the server compares the pixel statuses of pixels at the plurality of pixel locations of a display area of the client device (i.e. within a first image) to the pixel statuses of corresponding pixels within the pixel map (i.e. a second image), the server does so by randomly selecting a subset of pixels in the first image, and by comparing the pixel statuses of pixels of the randomly-selected subset to the pixel statuses of corresponding pixels in the second image (i.e. the pixel map), as is taught by Liu. The server thus identifies, from the client device, a pixel status of at least one pixel of a subset of the set of pixels within the display area of the electronic client device by selecting, according to a randomized sampling algorithm, the subset of the set of pixels and by identifying the pixel status of the at least one pixel of the subset. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would provide for a more efficient comparison of the images (i.e. by eliminating the necessity of comparing every pixel within the first image to a corresponding pixel in the second image), as is evident from Liu (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020, 0040-0041, 0044-0045, 0087-0089 and 0096). Accordingly, the Parent and Liu are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 1 of the instant application.
Like in claim 2 of the instant application, claim 1 of the Parent further teaches that the pixel status of the corresponding pixel within the pixel map corresponds to a color status (i.e. a color attribute) (i.e. claim 1 of the Parent recites, “comparing, by the server, a color attribute of the received pixel statuses of the pixels at the plurality of pixel locations of the electronic client device and a color attribute of the pixel statuses of corresponding pixels within the pixel map from the database”). Accordingly, claim 1 of the Parent and Liu are further considered to teach a method like that of claim 2 of the instant application.
Like in claim 3 of the instant application, claim 3 of the Parent teaches displaying, by the server, a status bar corresponding to a time value associated with execution of the second protocol (i.e. claim 3 of the Parent depends on claim 2 of the Parent, which recites “displaying, by the server, a status bar while the application is instructed to re-execute the first protocol,” and claim 3 of the Parent further recites that “the status bar corresponds to a time value associated with re-execution of the first protocol”). Accordingly, claim 3 of the Parent and Liu are considered to teach a method like that of claim 3 of the instant application.
Like in claim 5 of the instant application, claim 6 of the Parent teaches terminating, by the server, execution of the first protocol (i.e. claim 6 of the Parent recites “identifying, by the server, the application to terminate execution of the first protocol.”). Accordingly, claim 6 of the Parent and Liu are considered to teach a method like that of claim 5 of the instant application.
Like in claim 6 of the instant application, claim 7 of the Parent teaches refreshing, by the server, the display of the electronic application (i.e. claim 7 of the Parent recites “instructing, by the server, the application to refresh the webpage.”). Accordingly, claim 7 of the Parent and Liu are considered to teach a method like that of claim 6 of the instant application.
Like in claim 7 of the instant application, claim 10 of the Parent teaches pre-populating, by the server, at least one input field of the electronic application (i.e. claim 10 of the Parent recites “pre-populating, by the server, at least one input field based on the data stored upon re-execution of the first protocol.”). Accordingly, claim 10 of the Parent and Liu are considered to teach a method like that of claim 7 of the instant application.
Like in claim 8 of the instant application, claim 11 of the Parent teaches a system comprising:
a database (i.e. claim 11 of the Parent recites a “system comprising: a database;”);
an electronic client device (i.e. claim 11 of the Parent recites that the system comprises “an electronic client device”); and
a server configured to (i.e. claim 11 recites of the Parent recites that the system comprises “a server configured to…”):
retrieve, from the database, a pixel map corresponding to an electronic application (i.e. webpage form) displayed on the electronic client device as a result of execution of a first protocol, the pixel map indicating a pixel status of each pixel within a set of pixels of a display area of the electronic client device when the electronic application is displayed, wherein the pixel map is unique to a dimensional attribute of the display area of the electronic client device (i.e. claim 11 of the Parent recites that the server is configured to “receive from an application executing on the electronic device having a display area, an indication of execution, by a webserver communicatively coupled to the server, of a first protocol configured to display a plurality of media elements on a webpage comprising an electronic form displayed on the electronic device, wherein at least some of the media elements represent a section of the electronic form or fields of the electronic form; [and] retrieve from the database, based on a size of the display area of the electronic client device, a pixel map unique to the plurality of media elements and the display area, the pixel map indicating a pixel status of each pixel within a set of pixels of the display area when the display area displays the plurality of media elements wherein the pixel map is unique to a dimensional attribute of the display area”);
identify from the electronic client device, a pixel status of at least one pixel within the display area (i.e. claim 11 of the Parent recites that the server is configured to “upon receiving the indication of execution of the first protocol, generate an instruction to transmit pixel statuses of pixels at a plurality of pixel locations within the display area, and transmit the instruction to the electronic client device; [and] upon transmitting the instruction to the electronic client device, receive the pixel statuses of the pixels at the plurality of pixel locations”); and
upon determining that the pixel status of the at least one pixel does not match a pixel status of a corresponding pixel within the pixel map, execute a second protocol (i.e. a re-executed first protocol) configured to display the electronic application on the electronic client device (i.e. claim 11 of the Parent recites that the server is configured to “compare a color attribute of the received pixel statuses of the pixels at the plurality of pixel locations of the electronic client device and a color attribute of the pixel statuses of corresponding pixels within the pixel map from the database; and upon determining that the color attribute of one or more of the received pixel statuses does not match the color attribute of the pixel status of a corresponding pixel within the pixel map, determine a portion of the electronic form that is not fully displayed by the electronic client device, including which of the media elements are not fully displayed on the electronic client device, and instruct the application to cause the electronic client device to request the webserver to re-execute the first protocol to display the plurality of media elements on a webpage displayed on the electronic client device.”).
Claim 11 of the Parent thus describes a system similar to the system recited in claim 8 of the instant application. However, claim 11 of the Parent does not explicitly disclose that the pixel status identified by the server is particularly a pixel status of at least one pixel of a subset of the set of pixels, and is identified by selecting, according to a randomized sampling algorithm, the subset of the set of pixels and by determining the pixel status of the at least one pixel of the subset, as is required by claim 8 of the instant application.
Like noted above, Liu generally teaches a method to determine similarities between two images (see e.g. paragraph 0016). Liu particularly teaches determining the similarity between two images by, inter alia, randomly selecting a subset of pixels in a first image, and by comparing a pixel status (e.g. an intensity attribute) of each pixel in the randomly-selected subset to a pixel status (e.g. an intensity attribute) of a corresponding pixel from within a second image (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020, 0040-0041, 0044-0045, 0087-0089 and 0096).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the Parent and Liu before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by the Parent such that, when the server compares the pixel statuses of pixels at the plurality of pixel locations of the display area of the client device (i.e. within a first image) to the pixel statuses of corresponding pixels within the pixel map (i.e. a second image), the server does so by randomly selecting a subset of pixels in the first image, and by comparing the pixel statuses of pixels of the randomly-selected subset to the pixel statuses of corresponding pixels in the second image (i.e. the pixel map), as is taught by Liu. The server thus identifies, from the electronic client device, a pixel status of at least one pixel of a subset of the set of pixels within the display area of the electronic client device by selecting, according to a randomized sampling algorithm, the subset of the set of pixels and by identifying the pixel status of the at least one pixel of the subset. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would provide for a more efficient comparison of the images (i.e. by eliminating the necessity of comparing every pixel within the first image to a corresponding pixel in the second image), as is evident from Liu (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020, 0040-0041, 0044-0045, 0087-0089 and 0096). Accordingly, the Parent and Liu are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a system like that of claim 8 of the instant application.
Like in claim 9 of the instant application, claim 11 of the Parent further teaches that the pixel status of the corresponding pixel within the pixel map corresponds to a color status (i.e. a color attribute) (i.e. claim 11 of the Parent recites “compare a color attribute of the received pixel statuses of the pixels at the plurality of pixel locations of the electronic client device and a color attribute of the pixel statuses of corresponding pixels within the pixel map from the database”). Accordingly, claim 11 of the Parent and Liu are further considered to teach a system like recited in claim 9 of the instant application.
Like in claim 10 of the instant application, claim 13 of the Parent teaches that the server is configured to display a status bar corresponding to a time value associated with execution of the second protocol (i.e. claim 13 of the Parent depends from claim 12 of the Parent, which recites that “the server is further configured to display a status bar while the application is instructed to re-execute the first protocol,” and claim 13 of the Parent further recites that “the status bar corresponds to a time value associated with re-execution of the first protocol.”). Accordingly, claim 13 of the Parent and Liu are considered to teach a system like that of claim 10 of the instant application.
Like in claim 12 of the instant application, claim 16 of the Parent teaches that the server is configured to terminate execution of the first protocol (i.e. claim 16 of the Parent recites that “the server is further configured to identify the application to terminate execution of the first protocol.”). Accordingly, claim 16 of the Parent and Liu are considered to teach a system like recited in claim 12 of the instant application.
Like in claim 13 of the instant application, claim 17 of the Parent teaches that the server is further configured to refresh the display of the electronic application (i.e. claim 17 of the Parent recites that “the server is further configured to instruct the application to refresh the webpage.”). Accordingly, claim 17 of the Parent and Liu are considered to teach a system like recited in claim 13 of the instant application.
Like in claim 14 of the instant application, claim 20 of the Parent teaches that the server is configured to pre-populate at least one input field of the electronic application (i.e. claim 20 of the Parent recites that “the server is further configured to pre-populate at least one input field based on the data stored upon re-execution of the first protocol.”). Accordingly, claim 20 of the Parent and Liu are considered to teach a system like recited in claim 14 of the instant application.
Like in claim 15 of the instant application, claim 11 of the Parent teaches a system comprising one or more processors and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (i.e. claim 11 of the Parent teaches a “system comprising…a server configured to….” It is apparent that the server comprises at least one processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for execution by the at least one processor to perform the following tasks claimed as being performed by the server.):
retrieve a pixel map corresponding to an electronic application (i.e. webpage form) displayed on the electronic client device as a result of execution of a first protocol, the pixel map indicating a pixel status of each pixel within a set of pixels of a display area of the electronic client device when the electronic application is displayed, wherein the pixel map is unique to a dimensional attribute of the display area of the electronic client device (i.e. claim 11 of the Parent recites that the server is configured to “receive from an application executing on the electronic device having a display area, an indication of execution, by a webserver communicatively coupled to the server, of a first protocol configured to display a plurality of media elements on a webpage comprising an electronic form displayed on the electronic device, wherein at least some of the media elements represent a section of the electronic form or fields of the electronic form; [and] retrieve from the database, based on a size of the display area of the electronic client device, a pixel map unique to the plurality of media elements and the display area, the pixel map indicating a pixel status of each pixel within a set of pixels of the display area when the display area displays the plurality of media elements wherein the pixel map is unique to a dimensional attribute of the display area”);
identify from the electronic client device, a pixel status of at least one pixel within the display area (i.e. claim 11 of the Parent recites that the server is configured to “upon receiving the indication of execution of the first protocol, generate an instruction to transmit pixel statuses of pixels at a plurality of pixel locations within the display area, and transmit the instruction to the electronic client device; [and] upon transmitting the instruction to the electronic client device, receive the pixel statuses of the pixels at the plurality of pixel locations”); and
upon determining that the pixel status of the at least one pixel does not match a pixel status of a corresponding pixel within the pixel map, execute a second protocol (i.e. a re-executed first protocol) configured to display the electronic application on the electronic client device (i.e. claim 11 of the Parent recites that the server is configured to “compare a color attribute of the received pixel statuses of the pixels at the plurality of pixel locations of the electronic client device and a color attribute of the pixel statuses of corresponding pixels within the pixel map from the database; and upon determining that the color attribute of one or more of the received pixel statuses does not match the color attribute of the pixel status of a corresponding pixel within the pixel map, determine a portion of the electronic form that is not fully displayed by the electronic client device, including which of the media elements are not fully displayed on the electronic client device, and instruct the application to cause the electronic client device to request the webserver to re-execute the first protocol to display the plurality of media elements on a webpage displayed on the electronic client device.”).
Claim 11 of the Parent thus recites a system similar to the system recited in claim 15 of the instant application. However, claim 11 of the Parent does not explicitly disclose that the pixel status identified by the system is particularly a pixel status of at least one pixel of a subset of the set of pixels, and is identified by selecting, according to a randomized sampling algorithm, the subset of the set of pixels and by determining the pixel status of the at least one pixel of the subset, as is required by claim 15 of the instant application.
Like noted above, Liu generally teaches a method to determine similarities between two images (see e.g. paragraph 0016). Liu particularly teaches determining the similarity between two images by, inter alia, randomly selecting a subset of pixels in a first image, and by comparing a pixel status (e.g. an intensity attribute) of each pixel in the randomly-selected subset to a pixel status (e.g. an intensity attribute) of a corresponding pixel from within a second image (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020, 0040-0041, 0044-0045, 0087-0089 and 0096).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the Parent and Liu before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system taught by the Parent such that, when it compares the pixel statuses of pixels at the plurality of pixel locations of the display area of the client device (i.e. within a first image) to the pixel statuses of corresponding pixels within the pixel map (i.e. a second image), the system does so by randomly selecting a subset of pixels in the first image, and by comparing the pixel statuses of pixels of the randomly-selected subset to the pixel statuses of corresponding pixels in the second image (i.e. the pixel map), as is taught by Liu. The system thus identifies, from the client device, a pixel status of at least one pixel of a subset of the set of pixels within the display area of the electronic client device by selecting, according to a randomized sampling algorithm, the subset of the set of pixels and by identifying the pixel status of the at least one pixel of the subset. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would provide for a more efficient comparison of the images (i.e. by eliminating the necessity of comparing every pixel within the first image to a corresponding pixel in the second image), as is evident from Liu (see e.g. paragraphs 0019-0020, 0040-0041, 0044-0045, 0087-0089 and 0096). Accordingly, the Parent and Liu are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a system like that of claim 15 of the instant application.
Like in claim 16 of the instant application, claim 11 of the Parent further teaches that the pixel status of the corresponding pixel within the pixel map corresponds to a color status (i.e. a color attribute) (i.e. claim 11 of the Parent recites “compare a color attribute of the received pixel statuses of the pixels at the plurality of pixel locations of the electronic client device and a color attribute of the pixel statuses of corresponding pixels within the pixel map from the database”). Accordingly, claim 11 of the Parent and Liu are further considered to teach a system like recited in claim 16 of the instant application.
Like in claim 17 of the instant application, claim 13 of the Parent teaches that the instructions further cause the one or more processors to display a status bar corresponding to a time value associated with execution of the second protocol (i.e. claim 13 of the Parent depends from claim 12 of the Parent, which recites that “the server is further configured to display a status bar while the application is instructed to re-execute the first protocol,” and claim 13 of the Parent further recites that “the status bar corresponds to a time value associated with re-execution of the first protocol.”) Accordingly, claim 13 of the Parent and Liu are considered to teach a system like recited in claim 17 of the instant application.
Like in claim 19 of the instant application, claim 16 of the Parent teaches that the instructions further cause the one or more processors to terminate execution of the first protocol (i.e. claim 16 of the Parent recites that “the server is further configured to identify the application to terminate execution of the first protocol.”). Accordingly, claim 16 of the Parent and Liu are considered to teach a system like recited in claim 19 of the instant application.
Like in claim 20 of the instant application, claim 17 of the Parent teaches that the instructions further cause the one or more processors to refresh the display of the electronic application (i.e. claim 17 of the Parent recites that “the server is further configured to instruct the application to refresh the webpage.”). Accordingly, claim 17 of the Parent and Liu are considered to teach a system like recited in claim 20 of the instant application.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the above-described combination of the Parent and Liu, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0329801 to McKee et al. (“McKee”).
In particular, as is described above, claim 1 of the Parent and Liu teach a method like recited in claim 1 of the instant application, and claim 11 of the Parent and Liu teach systems like recited in claims 8 and 15 of the instant application. The method and systems entail retrieving (by a server like in claims 1 and 8 of the instant application) a pixel map corresponding to an electronic application displayed on an electronic client device as a result of execution of a first protocol. The claims of the Parent and Liu however do not teach retrieving (e.g. by the server) a status of connectivity associated with the electronic client device, as is required by claims 4, 11 and 18 of the instant application.
Like noted above, McKee describes a system and methods for detecting and correcting webpage and application layout anomalies on an electronic client device in real-time (see e.g. paragraphs 0006 and 0024). Like claimed, McKee particularly teaches retrieving, by a server, a status of connectivity (e.g. an upload and/or download speed) associated with the electronic client device (see e.g. paragraphs 0034-0035 and 0063).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the Parent, Liu and McKee before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and systems taught by the Parent and Liu so as to retrieve by the server a status of connectivity associated with the electronic client device, as is taught by McKee. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable the server to better identify or correct anomalies in the content displayed by the electronic client device, as is suggested by McKee (see e.g. paragraphs 0034-0035, 0040 and 0048). Accordingly, the Parent, Liu and McKee are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 4, a system like that of claim 11, and a system like that of claim 18 of the instant application.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8 and 15. In response to these amendments, the objections presented within the previous Office Action to claims 8-20 are respectfully withdrawn.
The Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections presented in the previous Office Action have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
The Applicant further argues that the double patenting rejections presented in the previous Office Action are rendered moot by the claim amendments. However, in response, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claims even as amended are taught by the Parent, McKee and the newly-introduced U.S. Patent Application Publication to Liu et al. cited above. Like now claimed, Liu particularly teaches identifying a pixel status of at least one pixel of a subset of a set of pixels by selecting, according to a randomized sampling algorithm, the subset of the set of pixels and by determining the pixel status of the at least one pixel, as is described above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. §1.111(C) to consider these references fully when responding to this action. In particular, the U.S. Patent to Li et al. cited therein describes a method for testing electronic visual user interface outputs, wherein the method comprises comparing a baseline screenshot of the user interface to one or more updated screenshots of the user interface. The U.S. Patent Application Publication to Berry et al. cited therein describes a method for automatically verifying the accuracy of server-provided content rendered at a client device. The WIPO Publication to Lemberg cited therein describes a method for analyzing if data generated by an application has been tampered with, wherein the application generates randomized addresses for positioning pixels on the screen of a device, a screenshot of the application when displayed on the device is taken, and the number and positions of the pixels within the screenshot are compared with the pixels that the application generated.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE T BASOM whose telephone number is (571)272-4044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:30 pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt Ell can be reached at (571)270-3264. 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.
/BTB/
1/5/2026
/MATTHEW ELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2141